Checkpoint of the Future Coming Soon To Airports

cultiv8 writes with this excerpt from an AP story as carried by Yahoo: "Eye scanners and futuristic security tunnels may be standard in airports soon as the airline industry seeks to maintain safety while reducing the hassles of boarding a plane that deter some people from flying. The International Air Transport Association unveiled a mock-up Tuesday in Singapore of what it dubbed the 'Checkpoint of the Future,' where passengers separated by security risk would walk through one of three high-tech, 20-foot-long (6.1-meters-long) tunnels that can quickly scan shoes and carry-on luggage and check for liquids and explosives. ... In the IATA prototype, passengers would be categorized based on the results of a government risk assessment that is put into a chip in a passenger's passport or other identification. An eye scan would then match the passenger to the passport."

Comments

Wow

[betterunixthanunix]

Just...wow...

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Cattle on a conveyor belt in a slaughterhouse

Re:Wow

[blair1q]

Willing participants in a travel system that could just drive if they weren't so full of themselves that they thought they had to be somewhere in 90 minutes instead of 10 hours.

Re:Wow

[LinksAwakener]

Don't be so naive. Anything more than a 9 hour drive and you're paying more for gas by driving, plus wasting a half day or more of vacation each way. And a majority of flyers are business, and therefore actually NEED to be there in a couple hours as opposed to the next day. Who would take an 8 hour drive instead of a 1 hour flight?

Re:Wow

[tortovroddle]

Crossing the Atlantic with a car would be very fun. =)

Re:Wow

[Derkec]

Or... our jobs are such that we visit our clients across the country. So I could spend every weekend driving and only be able to cover 20% of the country, or I can take a 10 minute pass through a security line twice a week. I'll take a ten minute inconveinance and let someone fly me somewhere in 4 hours rather than do a four day drive across the country - which would cost more money anyway.

Now, if you live on the East Coast, you might be able to travel to lots of people in a few hours. You might also be enough of a pretentious ass to think the whole country is on the east coast. For the rest of us, flying can be needed. For some of us, it's a regular thing that lets pay for things like food.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound poor.

Re:Wow

[countertrolling]

Yes, it would.. you could put it in the cargo hold and have dinner with the captain

Re:Wow

[Missing.Matter]

Me, although not an 8 hour drive but an 8 hour train ride. I used to travel from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia a lot. The plane trip is ~30 minutes, while the train ride is about 6-7 hours. With all the BS in the terminal, and traffic at the airport, the plane ride turned into a ~4 hour affair. The seats are cramped, there were no outlets, not much of a view, especially sitting in the aisle.

On the train, the seats go almost all the way back, I can get up and walk around, there are outlets at every seat, there's a viewing car I can sit in and watch the countryside go by, a movie car, a dining car, and I can even get a private room with a fold out bed if I want. And hey, if you're a smoker you can light up a cigg at every stop! Sure it costs a little more but my god it's worth it, and this was before the days of full body scanners. Now... my god I'd never fly unless I was absolutely forced to.

Re:Wow

[Joce640k]

Who would take an 8 hour drive instead of a 1 hour flight?

You can get to the airport, go through security,board a 'plane, fly somewhere, disembark then get to your destination in only one hour?

Maybe in a private jet with limo service...

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

For God's sake, just put armed police on every plane.

Lock the damn cockpit door and arm the pilots too.

It would be a whole lot cheaper, more effective, and less invasive.

I'd go so far as to say arm the passengers too, but that freaks people out.

Re:Wow

[tompaulco]

Even more amazing is that the flight must take negative one hours or less because you are supposed to be at the airport two hours before a domestic flight.

Re:Wow

[LinksAwakener]

I'm not sure how you make a half hour flight take 4 hours, in my experience it takes half that. Personally, I fly from one coast to another once per week, totaling 2400 air miles per week. My entire company flies to the same place as me, from wherever they happened to live. A drive would take 3 days, a train would take about 2. When I fly, I have about two and a half days at home every other week. If I were to take the train, I would have zero time and be a day late back to where I work. Flying is the only way I get to see my family. Honestly, though, if I were as close to home as you, I'd still fly because it still would give me several extra hours at home when I was allowed home. I go through the torture because I'm willing to do so for the extra time I get to see my wife. If I were a bachelor, I probably would skip the two and a half days I get just to avoid the plane too.

To say it's caused by vanity, however, seems rather ignorant to me. (Yes, I'm aware it wasn't you)

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even a conveyor belt! It's a death march!

Re:Wow

[Missing.Matter]

Perhaps if I had a wife and kids I wanted to see, you're probably right. At this time in my life I'm more concerned about my leg room and free apple juice, however.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, lets say you were going to Seattle or California for business instead of somewhere in the same state. You aren't going to want to waste 5 days (2.5 there, 2.5 back) on the drive when you could be done in 8 hours. Not to mention plane tickets would be 1/3rd the cost of driving and about 1/6th the cost of the train.

Re:Wow

[LinksAwakener]

The flight takes 1 hour in the same way the drive takes 8 hours--that's 8 hours not including time to gas up, pit stops, eating, etc.

Re:Wow

[DrgnDancer]

That's a severely over hyped idea for many-if-not-most airports. An hour is plenty early for most regional airports during non-peak flight times. Sure if you're flying out of Kennedy or trying to travel on the Weds before Thanksgiving you need to get there two (or more) hours early, but out of Huntsville I never get there more than an hour early unless it's holiday travel. It was the same out of Lafayette, LA. Even going out of Boston-Logan I rarely do more than an hour and a half and could probably get away with an hour (though I get nervous with that one).

Re:Wow

[SDF-7]

Depends on the number of people, really.

Sample annual trip just made (CA to GA): 2438 miles.

Airline cost per-person, cattle-class [not adding in taxes, fees and per-bag costs or whatnot they stick you with now] started at $450 per person round-trip.

The 2005 Impala got between 29 to 30 US mpg on the highway, call it 29 to be generous (to your claim).

Similarly, gas ranged from $3.459 to $4.759 per US gallon, but generously use $5 assuming rising prices. That's $420.35 one way, $840.70 round trip.

Since this was 2 adults and one child (not young enough to fly free -- and even if it was possible, who would take a 4+ hour flight in cattle class with a squirming/upset infant on their lap... assuming they had any confidence in said infant not taking a tumble in turbulence), that $450 starts at $1350.

Car has to tack on hotels (depends on how aggressively you push it -- 2 days is possible with 5 hour sleep breaks or so), airline has to tack on transport to/from airport [either mass transit or rental car or long term parking], etc.

The big wins for me are having the trunk of the Impala available at no additional charge, no hassle with rental cars -- and most importantly, no getting handled as if I'd created a felony. The last point frankly would keep me driving even at a 2x cost factor, but you can't claim that "you're paying more for gas by driving" as that simply isn't true outside of lousy SUVs and driving solo.

And before someone brings it up -- the trains were *more expensive* than the car, and took a week to get there by routing through Chicago. Get Amtrack to get a reasonable continental train going somewhere between airline and car prices but taking 2-3 days tops and I suspect a lot more folks would choose it.

Re:Wow

[SDF-7]

Ok... now I'm really curious. What coasts are you referring to, and if they're the US Atlantic and Pacific coasts (not Gulf Coast to Atlantic or something silly) -- just what train did you find that only takes 2 days?

I'm seriously asking - since every one I looked at ended up going through LA then up to Chicago and back down (to Atlanta -- maybe Chicago to NY is somehow faster). If you have a link to a 2 day train which is reasonably priced (say $1k per person tops), I'd love to consider that for our next trip.

Re:Wow

[yomammamia]

Great way to create a new kind of government approved caste system if you ask me.

Re:Wow

[realityimpaired]

Never left the continental US, have you? Admittedly you can take a car by ferry, but transatlantic or transpacific ferries pretty much don't exist. You can book passage on a cruiseliner and put your car in the hold, but a transatlantic crossing usually runs in the $4000 range, not to mention taking 4-5 days depending on the route.. There's bridges too, but bridges tend to have expensive tolls... $50 for the one between PEI and New Brunswick, for example. At that kind of price, and with the cost of gas, it is cheaper for me to simply fly there.

I can understand where you're coming from but do think a little before assuming that everybody who flies is just doing it for puddle jumps. I have flown on short hops twice in my life... once from Ottawa to Toronto, as a leg on a flight to Winnipeg, and once from Montreal to Ottawa, as a leg on the return flight. Admittedly, Montreal is only 2h from Ottawa and it would have been faster and cheaper to drive than to wait for the layover, but the military was paying for it, and they weren't interested in logic at the time. That is, coincidentally, the only trip I have taken by plane where driving would have even been possible, as every other flight I have taken has been intercontinental, or a connection to an island, or to the extreme north where roads don't exist.

Re:Wow

[h4rr4r]

Hotel stops?
You have 2 drivers, one sleeps while the other drives.

Re:Wow

[SDF-7]

Optimally, yes. Sometimes that isn't an option, unfortunately. [The other adult may not be able or willing to drive, after all].

Re:Wow

[blair1q]

I drive a Prius. 9 hours @ 75 mph = 675 miles @ 42 mpg = 16 gallons of gas @ $4/gal = $64.

Unless you're hitching a ride with a crop-duster and paying in home-grown sinsemilla, you're not getting there on a plane for $64.

If you drive a Hummer, see above about self-importance. Ibid re "wasting half a day of vacation."

Re:Wow

[gstoddart]

Willing participants in a travel system that could just drive if they weren't so full of themselves that they thought they had to be somewhere in 90 minutes instead of 10 hours.

Right now, a 2 hour flight gets me to visit my parents ... a 15 hour drive otherwise (assuming you actually follow the speed limits). Since I can't drive that long, I'd also need to stay in a hotel. Oh, and I'd need to eat and buy gas.

When I travel for business, I'm typically traveling much further than that. (More like a 4-5 hour flight).

If one places any value whatsoever on ones time ... spending 10 hours in a car isn't viable in a lot of contexts. Leaving the "don't go" option, or air travel.

I'm not entirely keen on this new big brother airport of the future ... but there's a lot of contexts where traveling by car simply isn't a viable option. I can fly to visit my parents for a weekend ... if I drove there ... well, there would be no point if I only had a weekend since it couldn't happen.

Re:Wow

[blair1q]

You can.

I'll be busy hitting on the Duchess.

Re:Wow

[blair1q]

our jobs are such that we visit our clients across the country

That's that sense of self-importance thing, again. Grinding yourself in the gears of the machine for a few more shekels is a psychological issue.

Re:Wow

[Missing.Matter]

Yeah, probably. I mean, it all depends on how often this needs to be done. If I'm doing that trip every week, obviously the time spent on a train/driving would really start to add up. But these days if I have to go to a conference once or twice a year I'll opt for the train. I can get a lot of work done in my sleeper room anyway.

Also it's not that much more expensive. Cheapest round trip flight I can find from Philadelphia to Seattle on Orbitz is $624. Cheapest round trip for Amtrak is $857. So $233 more for a train, or about 40% more. If you get a sleeper it is more, but then again you get all your meals free.

Re:Wow

[blair1q]

You are hearing-impaired.

Re:Wow

[houghi]

Who would take an 8 hour drive instead of a 1 hour flight?

OK Let's compare. Leuven Belgium where I live to Husum, Germany where my sister lives. The flight will be Brussels to Hamburg. 09:35-10:50 or 1h20.

9:35 means I have to leave at 7:15 to get the 7:27 train. Later and I miss my flight. Then at Hamburg, an hour checkout. so that is 10:50. Then a train again at 12:13 and arriving at my sister at 15:15
So that is 8 hours travel time.

By train it is an hour more.

By car it is one hour less. And this is more then an hour flight, so yes, I would take the car.

When I would want to go to Amsterdam. the train would be a way better option, just like London or Paris.

Re:Wow

[Quiet_Desperation]

It depends. I attended a few technical seminars for work about 7 hours north of me. I drove because it was up a part of Pacific Coast Highway I have never seen, it was an overnight trip anyway, and I felt like it.

Re:Wow

[gstoddart]

I'm not sure how you make a half hour flight take 4 hours, in my experience it takes half that.

Unless you're only flying from tiny little airports, I'm surprised by that. Even a medium-sized airport is crazy.

Depending on how big your city is, getting to the airport is likely a 30 minute or so affair. They suggest you arrive at the airport at least 90 minutes before your flight ... that's two hours right there. then your 30 minute flight. Figure 20 minutes easily to get your bags, and then assume another 30 minutes to your destination.

I figure that's 3.5 hrs right there, give or take.

Hell, when I fly a longer haul flight ... the trip time to the airport, the recommended arrival time, and the time on the back end don't change. My usual flight is about 4h15 minutes ... and the trip takes me about 7.5 hrs door to door.

In all but the most tiny of regional airports, I can't see how you are getting away with only 2 hours including flight time. In my experience, there's pretty much 2 hrs minimum on the front end of the flight, and 1 hr on the backend ... regardless of the actual flight time.

Re:Wow

[realityimpaired]

There *are* armed police on every plane. They're called Air Marshals.

And the cockpit doors are closed and locked, and fortified. Pilots don't need to be armed. It's a good system for preventing hijackings: witness the fact that there hasn't been a hijacking since they started fortifying the cockpit doors.

That said, armed police on every plane and fortified cockpits do nothing against a small bomb in your carry on... one that's just big enough to cause an explosive decompression, or placed just over the fuel tank?

Personally, I think they should use explosive-sniffing dogs instead of super expensive technology that's prone to failure, but TFA is talking about an improvement over the current gate rape situation, and frankly, it's one I wouldn't really object to. I am also surprised that TFA didn't include a screencap from the movie Total Recall.

Re:Wow

[Quiet_Desperation]

just what train did you find that only takes 2 days?

The secret Stonecutter train through the Earth's crust.

Re:Wow

[Deus.1.01]

Except, instead of a bolt piston at the end of the line we get an energy directed explosion.

The reason for the tunnels last time i read about it was to protect passengers from exploding bombs, and the visualisation i saw was long arched plexiglass corridors.

Depending of course how long these tunnels will be, a bomb will be much more deadly then exploding in an open air enviroment.

but ...IANABM

Re:Wow

[Amouth]

my only question is if you travel that route that much - why don't you just move?

by plane or by air or by anything to spend that much time just to move around seems a horrid waste of time/energy/money..

Re:Wow

[Mister Whirly]

Yes, let's put the guns on the planes already. That will save the hijackers the problem of having to sneak them on. Brilliant. Maybe you could offer grenades and Molotov cocktails as snacks too?

Re:Wow

[LinksAwakener]

I drive a Mustang, which gets 16-17 mpg. Gas isn't $4 anymore, at least as far as I've seen. It averages $4.50 in my experience, and in Canada, where I work but not live, is actually closer to $6/gallon.

675 miles @ 17mpg = 39.5 Gallons @ $4.5/gal = $180 * 2 (round trip) = $360.

I can get a flight for that length at about $300, and that's best-case scenario regarding price of gas and fuel efficiency, and it's not even factoring in the full day vacation I save (worth about $300 per day).

That having been said, if you're traveling with at least one more person it cuts costs significantly. But as I said, most travelers are business and therefore traveling solo.

Re:Wow

[Quiet_Desperation]

True. I fly in/out of a smaller airport here in California. It literally takes 10 minutes or less from the curb to sitting in the terminal. They actually push the stairs up to the side of the plane which I like for some reason.

One caveat: I have learned to not check a bag and use a carry on only. Checked baggage can miss your flight and come on the next one if you get to the airport 15-20 minutes before a flight. I can stuff a week's clothing in mine, and for multiweek trips I make them put me up someplace that has a laundry room.

It helps to be a key design engineer because I can tell management they can bloody well send someone else if they try and force LAX on me. Every added security measure just makes it that much easier for me, actually, so you go Homeland Security! You go girl!

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you have alternate suggestions for this fellow to keep himself employed, fed, clothed and sheltered other than his job?

Re:Wow

[Hatta]

Sounds like you need to move.

Re:Wow

[LinksAwakener]

I live about 15 minutes from an International airport, including traffic. For a 30 minute flight I would arrive about an hour before the flight, get to the gate easily within 30 minutes (normally takes me 10 to get from outside the airport to my gate), and I don't check any luggage, I use carry-on only. Even if I did, I'm normally the first or second bag to get off the plane. And with Hertz, my rental car is waiting for me. 15 minutes to the airport, an hour wait, 30 minute flight and 15 minutes to get my bag if I have to. 2 hours.

Re:Wow

[Missing.Matter]

For me the big culprit was Pittsburgh International. It's about 30 minutes out from downtown Pittsburgh, which means either take the bus, which will take an hour, or take a cab, which will cost a fortune.

Re:Wow

[LinksAwakener]

Because:

A - I just bought a house and it would be very stupid to try and sell it in this market and

B - because my projects only last anywhere from 3 months to 3 years, then I go somewhere else in the world.

I live in Washington State and work near Toronto, Canada. I have potential projects in Canada, England, Scotland, Japan, China, and Puerto Rico. It wouldn't be smart for me to settle anywhere my projects take me because I would be moving every other year or more. That's not fair to my family, so I travel.

Re:Wow

[teslafreak]

I've never been on a commuter train (just a historical one in Utah). That actually sounds like a really pleasant way to travel. Better even than driving yourself.

Re:Wow

[LinksAwakener]

LOL. Well I didn't actually look at any trains. I was speaking from experience, which is lacking. From Washington to California takes me 24 hours, I assumed from Washington to New York would be 2 to 3. So needless to say, I was obviously wrong. But it only emphasizes my point more.

Re:Wow

[Missing.Matter]

It's only pleasant if time really isn't a factor. It's great if you just want to treat the journey as part of the trip, rather than just the destination. One of the downsides is freight traffic seems to get some sort of priority. On one trip, excessive freight traffic added 4 hours to the journey. I was fine with it since I was in the observation car with 3G and a power outlet, but I can see how other people could find that frustrating.

Re:Wow

[AJH16]

Last I knew, there are not air marshals on every flight. They are only on a small minority of flights as a random deterrent that they might be there. Also, that doesn't do anything about someone wanting to simply blow a plane up, it just stops hijackings which really would work anymore anyway.

Re:Wow

[LinksAwakener]

If I moved to where my project is, I'd be moving every other year or more. That's not very fair to my family, so I don't.

Re:Wow

[nschubach]

It really depends on flight times in some mid size cities... I know I would never try to skimp Chicago O'Hare or Atlanta because every time I've flown out of them it's been packed to the hilt waiting for TSA. Columbus, OH has times when you can get to the airport 30min before your flight and be at your gate to fly in plenty of time. I wouldn't try it during their peak time though. Last time I flew out of CMH later in the day (~8pm) there was five people in front of me in the TSA line.

Re:Wow

[LinksAwakener]

That's a good point, but the train system in the US blows. If you take the train, you will arrive late. And I live a 15 minute drive away from an airport.

You still make a good point, it just so happens that in my situation, the airport is hands down the best option for me.

Re:Wow

[mobby_6kl]

Do you know where Singapore is?

Re:Wow

[dkleinsc]

I've done a lot of extended trips via Amtrak. It's quite pleasant so long as you just don't worry so much about the "gotta get there" feeling and just enjoy the view, the conversation, and the generally relaxed atmosphere.

As far as the freight problem, it varies a lot depending on which area of the rail network you're in. Northeast Corridor - no problem, that's track dedicated to passenger rail, so there's not much delay there. Going through the Rockies and Great Plains is again very little problem because there's not that much freight traffic out there. But where you will definitely run into trouble is between Chicago (Amtrak's largest hub) and the east coast. This is somewhat mitigated by a rules change that was put in place about 5 years ago to allow Amtrak to sue freight companies when they delay passengers too much.

Re:Wow

[Missing.Matter]

But where you will definitely run into trouble is between Chicago (Amtrak's largest hub) and the east coast.

This is exactly where I had my troubles, going from Pittsburgh to Chicago. That makes a lot of sense now.

feeling and just enjoy the view, the conversation

You just reminded me of my favorite part of train travel: the people. I've met so many interesting people on the train, in the observation car or the dining car. People seem a little more laid back exactly because they don't have the "gotta get there" mentality, so they're more open to just talking. On a plane you might talk to your seat mate, but on the train you have more freedom and time to talk to other people as well. Also if you take the same route often you get to know the conductor and crew. After only my 3rd trip they started recognizing me by sight and today we're on a first name basis.

Re:Wow

[blair1q]

I drive a Mustang

See above re "full of themselves".

Re:Wow

[blair1q]

Another job. One that doesn't involve pretending it matters if you're there in an hour or a day, because you just have to beat that other droid to the sale.

Re:Wow

[DrXym]

Just...wow...

What's the problem if meets its stated goals of speeding up security without compromising it? Obviously that's a massive assumption which should be backed up by empirical study. It certainly isn't hard to see what a pain in the ass the current system is for passengers and staff. People don't like bullshit random patdowns or bag searches and I bet staff don't like doing it either when the security risk for certain passengers is minimal and their attentions should be focused elsewhere.

Re:Wow

[LinksAwakener]

I'm full of myself because I drive a cheap car? You'll have to explain this to me...

Re:Wow

[Mephistophocles]

Who would take an 8 hour drive instead of a 1 hour flight?

Uh, me, if it avoids being treated like a base criminal. And don't worry, my clients will be paying for any additional cost in time and fuel. I assure you I'm not the only person doing this, BTW. I wonder how much draconian (and meaningless) "security" measures like this have hurt the economy? Oh, right - probably directly proportional to the amount paid out to the various draconian (and meaningless) government agencies and contractors and oversee/implement them.

Re:Wow

[countertrolling]

But of course.. It would be rude of me not to share..

Re:Wow

[im_thatoneguy]

Cheapest round trip flight I can find from Philadelphia to Seattle on Orbitz is $624. Cheapest round trip for Amtrak is $857. So $233 more for a train, or about 40% more. If you get a sleeper it is more, but then again you get all your meals free.

Seattle to Philadelphia!? That's an 80 hour Amtrak trip. There are times and places for trains. Cross country is not one of them. :) I used to do Seattle -> Nebraska every year and that was fun with family but more as a trip in of itself.

Re:Wow

[Amouth]

aka consulting projects - i work for a similar type of company - luckily i'm not one of the ones that has to fly

i only posed it because of the way you phrased it.. it didn't (to me) come off as project/short term work

Re:Wow

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

but ...IANABM

Don't feel bad, I'm not a Black Mage either.

Re:Wow

[blair1q]

Your car takes 2.5 times as much gasoline as a Prius, and has a comparable MSRP. How is that cheap?

Re:Wow

[LinksAwakener]

Because I paid $2k for it.

Re:Wow

[blair1q]

You can pay that for a Prius, too. And save 60% on gassing it up. And stop making the rest of us pay to scrape your creosote off the wilderness.

Re:Wow

[LinksAwakener]

I couldn't find a reliable Prius, they were all high-mileage and in disrepair. This car was well taken care of, and the same price. And I'm not making anybody but myself pay to scrape up creosote. Those costs come out of taxes on gas, which I use more of, ergo I'm paying for it.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Because why pay for this shit when we could be paying for, say, schools or hospitals?

Sometimes I wish we'd get into a real, all-out conventional war, just to remind people how ABSOLUTELY FUCKING HORRIFYING IT IS. And how hilariously trivial the things they worry about now are.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

You, and the airline companies, have completely missed the point.

"Eye scanners and futuristic security tunnels may be standard in airports soon as the airline industry seeks to maintain safety while reducing the hassles of boarding a plane that deter some people from flying."

Really? The last time I went though an airport I was not thinking "oh darn, this line is so long and I am tired of waiting!" I was thinking "Oh darn, my rights are being violated, my privacy is being violated, my privates are being violated and I am being treated like an animal by some power hungry TSA agents."

So,... Futuristic eye scanners will make this all better how exactly???

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't arm the pilot because they don't trust them either, they go through the same security everyone else does. Also, guys with guns doesn't stop a hidden bomb exploding does it?

Re:Wow

[DrXym]

So,... Futuristic eye scanners will make this all better how exactly???

They'll make a difference because they authenticate that the person holding the passport is the person on the passport. Schipol airport has been running a eye scan fast track for years now. It requires a person to register and pay a fee for the service which people are happy to do when it means not standing in a queue for 20 minutes every time.

If you don't want to use the scheme you join the normal queue like everyone else. Of course you still benefit since participants aren't standing in the same queue as you are.

As for your other concerns, well it appears you're objecting about what happens at the moment, therefore I would have thought you would welcome anything that speeds your passage through the system and minimizes the need for patdowns or other measures which are often mandatory and supplemented by random extra measures at present. You think the TSA likes patting down kids and old ladies or forcing mothers to drink breast milk? I bet every airport security manager wishes they had greater flexibility and could focus more on the potentially high risk passengers and less on the low risk ones. If technology assists with that (a fact that would have to be demonstrated) then it will benefit everyone.

Re:Wow

[Martin Blank]

The fastest way to get from LA to DC via train is via Chicago. Most of the major western and Midwest stops run their traffic from DC through Boston via Chicago. From LA to DC, it's the Southwest Chief into Chicago (43 hours) and then the Capitol Limited (17.5 hours) with a few hours in between, for a total of 63 hours of travel. LA to New York is actually worse, with the second leg, the Lake Shore Limited, taking 20 hours. Basically, it's three days of travel in each direction.

An alternate is to go from LA to DC via the Sunset Limited into New Orleans and then the Crescent into DC via Atlanta, but that takes 83 hours and involves an overnight stay, which for comfort's sake probably means a hotel room.

Ticket prices for that are expensive, too. Looking at leaving on Tuesday, 31 Sept 2011, for LA-DC via Chicago, a basic coach seat is $203 each way if you buy well enough ahead of time, plus meals. One could bring one's own food and drink, but that may get bulky and/or bland. Changing it to a Superliner Roomette (3.5 feet by 6.5 feet) boosts the price to $701, though that includes dining. The Roomette has a second bunk for someone else to join (must add the $203 base ticket for a total of $904). A family of four can go in a 5'2"x9'5" Family Bedroom for $2522 (4 tickets at $203 plus SWC room at $1184 and CapLtd room at $526); two of the bunks are under five feet in length and intended for children. All of the listed options use shared showers and toilets. An option for private shower/toilet is available with the Superliner Bedroom. This sleeps two (three if two are willing to share the bottom bunk), is 6.5 feet by 7.5 feet, has a recliner and the bottom bed is converted from a sofa. This costs $2253 for two people or $2456 for three people.

Summary:
  - $203 per person for coach (plus food, which ranges from $6 to $23 depending on which meal, not including beverage, based on the Capitol Limited menu)
  - $452 per person for Superliner Roomette
  - $631 per person for Family Bedroom
  - $819 to $1127 per person for Superliner Bedroom

This is for each direction of travel, and is the lowest price I could find (the prices can be different on other days). This is, based on 2.5 days of travel, about $100 per day at coach (presuming $30 per day in food) to $180 per day with the Roomette to $252 per day with the Family Bedroom to up to $450 per day with the Superliner bedroom. Coach makes economic sense, but I don't know how comfortable those seats are going to be for overnight sleeping. The rooms start making little sense, as I can get a room for five days with a friend in DC plus airfare for a lot less than the $900 round-trip cost, even factoring in some nice food. As things move up from there, it makes even less sense.

Sure, there's something romantic about taking a train across the country. I'd probably even like to do it one day. But there's just nothing there that makes economic sense for regular travel.

Re:Wow

[Stiletto]

our jobs are such that we visit our clients across the country

That's that sense of self-importance thing, again. Grinding yourself in the gears of the machine for a few more shekels is a psychological issue.

Can you please stop texting and make me my latte already, kid?

Re:Wow

[blair1q]

You should be paying mine, too, then.

Re:Wow

[shermo]

On your point A - Surely you'd be buying another house, so you're selling and buying in the same market.

Re:Wow

[pavelthesecond]

I don't believe driving, or even taking a train is possible between Tokyo and London you insensitive clod! Now I could take a boat but then we are talking about well over a week instead of 12hours. And yes, I do need to travel between those two cities.

Re:Wow

[AHuxley]

They have you if you drive too - your face, OCR, car
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F90wnuWo6jk

Re:Wow

[1u3hr]

They'll make a difference because they authenticate that the person holding the passport

What's the point of that? How many times does it have to be pointed out that the 911 hijackers used clean, apparently legit, passports. Suicide bombers tend not to have criminal records. They can board the planes under their own names.

I'm not sure whether to be horrified or amused by the idea that :

passengers would be categorized based on the results of a government risk assessment that is put into a chip in a passenger's passport or other identification. An eye scan would then match the passenger to the passport. Low-risk passengers would walk through a tunnel with their carry-on luggage in just a few minutes -- much quicker than the current average security screening of 35 minutes, IATA said. High-risk passengers would be directed to walk through the tunnel that performs a full body scan while searching for items like explosives.

Just security theatre. Has a "high risk" passenger ever actually been found to be carrying a bomb or whatever/ It's basically ethnic profiling. Whites and Chinese will go through the quick low-risk lane, brown people will go through the more invasive high risk lane. Makes people FEEL safer, achieves nothing as far as security is concerned. Is it not completely obvious that the terrorists observe this and will use people who are "low risk"? You can't predict who they are. You can either 1) treat EVERYONE as a high risk or 2) choose people at random (not just all the men whose first name is "Mohammed") and check them. Any method that allows people to duck security will be used to subvert it.

Re:Wow

[DrXym]

What's the point of that? How many times does it have to be pointed out that the 911 hijackers used clean, apparently legit, passports. Suicide bombers tend not to have criminal records. They can board the planes under their own names.

A fast track doesn't mean "no security" so your point is invalid. They would still pass through security checks and still be subject to random checks but some of the process could be automated. Chances are that non nationals would not be eligible as participants.

Just security theatre. Has a "high risk" passenger ever actually been found to be carrying a bomb or whatever/ It's basically ethnic profiling. Whites and Chinese will go through the quick low-risk lane, brown people will go through the more invasive high risk lane. Makes people FEEL safer, achieves nothing as far as security is concerned

If it hadn't escaped your notice, radical muslims tend on the whole to be from certain countries and have certain ethnic backgrounds. I see no issue with taking that into account when screening however disagreeable it may to be to the vast majority who are not radicals or terrorists. Not that the screening would necessarily work that way at least overtly but I would not be surprised if it did covertly scoring passengers on age / nationality / sex / manner of ticket purchase / travel history / watchlist names and other factors.

Re:Wow

[1u3hr]

covertly scoring passengers on age / nationality / sex / manner of ticket purchase / travel history / watchlist names and other factors.

Yes, and you think al Qaeda et al wouldn't expect that and use people who did not fall in this "high risk" group? You'd be spending most of your effort vetting the exact passengers who would never be chosen for a real attack and wavign through those who were in the real risk group. Any kind of ethnic profiling creates a corresponding loophole.

Re:Wow

[SharpFang]

He factored car traffic in. Considering most airports are on outskirts of the city (vs train terminals which tend to be near the center of the city), and the roads to them tend to be jammed most of the time, a 1h drive to the airport and 1h drive from the airport is a very probable estimate.

Re:Wow

[Methuseus]

My wife and I flew out of Tampa International Airport on Christmas Eve 2009 and got there 1 hour before the flight left and were still sitting there for over 20 minutes after security. I know it's no O'Hare, but that's still a fairly peak travel day.

Re:Wow

[DrXym]

Yes, and you think al Qaeda et al wouldn't expect that and use people who did not fall in this "high risk" group? You'd be spending most of your effort vetting the exact passengers who would never be chosen for a real attack and wavign through those who were in the real risk group. Any kind of ethnic profiling creates a corresponding loophole

Sure they would, if they could find such people. Chances are they'd soon get on the radar for other reasons. Even if they didn't it still wouldn't mean they'd waltz through security since other measures metal detectors, bag xrays, secondary random screening, behavioural analysis etc are unlikely to be waived.

At the end of the day it's a huge exercise in game theory. If you can score passengers by risk and sort them into groups such (for example) that group A would only contain 1 in 100 terrorists, group B would only contain 10 in 100 terrorists and group C would contain 89 out of 100 terrorists, would you miss more terrorists by screening all groups equally or screening groups B and C more rigorously than A. Sure some people might still slip through if you're looking at group C more than group A, but would it catch more than not sorting by group in the first place. That's the big question.

Re:Wow

[Methuseus]

I think it's more that you could have bought like, say, an Elantra that gets at least 30 miles to the gallon, and probably pay less. Or a Vibe, or I could name lots of cars under $15000 that get good gas mileage. If you bought it used, then maybe you were buying what you could get, but you still probably could have found a more efficient car.

Re:Wow

[Methuseus]

Exactly this. We have too many sales people in this country. And none of them have the customer's actual needs in mind. If they did I wouldn't mind it so much. I would love to buy anything in an electronics store and not be asked if I want to pay 50% of the cost to be able to get it replaced once over the next 3 years. Or how I need to get this add-on that will only help if I'm mentally retarded and have an ape for a best friend.

Re:Wow

[1u3hr]

If you can score passengers by risk

That the big assumption. The "risk groups" are always based on the LAST attack. And we can be sure that if there is another, they won't use 19 Saudi nationals. But those are the ones the TSA will be looking at hardest.

hat group A would only contain 1 in 100 terrorists, group B would only contain 10 in 100 terrorists and group C would contain 89 out of 100 terrorists

But it's nothing like that. It's more like one in a million. Making any statistical targeting a complete crapshoot, and simply justifying probing all the Abduls and Omars who are almost certainly (999,999 out of a million) completely innocent. Statistically, you're better to be completely random, even if that means occasionally searching Jewish grandmothers. They can't game that. .

Re:Wow

[tompaulco]

Well, they tell you two hours, and I have had occasion where it took almost that entire amount of time. The last flight I took, I got there about an hour and change ahead of my flight, and nearly missed it. I also fly out of a regional airport. Security was packed, and probably would have taken about 30 minutes, but they were letting people in front of us who were about to miss their plane because they only got there 45 minutes ahead of their flight, so as a consequence, I almost missed mine.
I've also had the front counter delay me about 45 minutes because of a screwup on their side and I asked them to let the gate know I was coming. They did not. I was severely chastised by the gate personnel because they had to reopen the jetway door. I told them the problem was the counter people and that they were supposed to call and tell them I was coming. To add insult to injury, I also had been given a special ticket by the front counter that automatically made me have to go through extra security. I had to add that airline to the list of airlines that I won't fly on. There are no longer any airlines at my airport that are on my list of acceptable airlines to fly on.

Re:Wow

[Coren22]

Cheap car? What are you smoking. Corolla (18k new 40ish mpg) is cheap car, Camry (22k new 33ish mpg) is a decent car, Mustang (28k new) is a sports car. The Camry comes out as being more comfortable inside with more trunk space too.

Re:Wow

[LinksAwakener]

Yes, cheap car. Obviously I'm not smoking whatever you're smoking. Mustangs are $22k new. Learn to troll better.

Like I've already said, I paid $2k for a reliable car, unlike Carollas, Camrys etc which are the same used price but tend to wear out sooner. Honda's are reliable and I preferred one of those, but all the Hondas in my area were not very well maintained, almost all of them having some sort of body damage. The Mustang I bought, however, was well maintained and for the last 7 years has only broken down once. So once again, my car was cheap.

Re:Wow

[Kelbear]

The equivalency of the buying and selling conditions depends on the locations of both houses, since the topic indicates the need for air travel, the distance between the houses is probably quite significant.

Even though the housing market overall is down, there are particular locations which haven't fallen as much, and are enjoying a much faster recovery, while others are recovering slower, or even continuing to lose value.

Re:Wow

[RockDoctor]

They suggest you arrive at the airport at least 90 minutes before your flight ...

Three hours now. Which means that my next trip to work will be taking 9 hours, plus flying time. Then the boat.

Which of course assumes that civil war doesn't break out in the transfer country. Again. This quarter.

sooo

[ae1294]

They got the idea from total recall then?

Re:sooo

[pnewhook]

Exactly what I was thinking.

Although anything that doesn't require me to remove my shoes and belt is a good thing. Can't stand travelling to the US for that reason.

Re:sooo

[blair1q]

I'm pretty sure the sniffer on this thing can detect the decay products of steroids.

Re:sooo

[zill]

Is it sensitive enough to also detect cannabis?

Re:sooo

[tchernobog]

Also the beginning of Batman: Arkham Asylum has a tunnel of this sort.

Re:sooo

[ColdWetDog]

They got the idea from total recall then?

Yeah, that's what I thought. I so want to create the disassembling head-thing that Arnie had. Bonus points for being able to hit the red switch.

Re:sooo

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditto, but does this mean that we get to see a bunch of green skeletons walking by instead of the nudes? That would be a welcome change as long as it wasn't too many rads.

Re:sooo

[Local ID10T]

Yep...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWIHv7a6luY

Re:sooo

[wiedzmin]

And Mr & Mrs Smith :)

Re:sooo

[blair1q]

yes, if it's full of beagles.

Re:sooo

[Chris Mattern]

And a helluva lot of good it did *them*....

Re:sooo

[Anonymous Coward]

two weeks!

Re:sooo

[Anonymous Coward]

Wear a belt with less metal, not texas sized. I have gone through metal detectors with metal belts, metal pins, and most recently, while wearing my iPod Shuffle. I accidentally learned that it can get through without setting off the alarm.

Now, if they make you go through the body scanner, then you need to take off the belt. BOS makes me go through the body scanner all the time, but other airports, don't.

Re:sooo

[Wiarumas]

I was thinking Minority Report. Have the retinal scan interface with Google and display ads while you walk through.

Re:sooo

[EdIII]

Well if it is..... then it means that they will shut down LAS (Las Vegas Airport).

Are you kidding me? Half the people come in shit faced already prepared to party, and half leave hungover and barely able to walk, while the other half leaves "under the influence". Not to mention I can't tell you how many times I have been in a bathroom hearing a bunch of guys laughing at their friend ripping off the tape he used to keep a bag of pot taped up near his testicles.

If they detect it on me? It does not even mean anything. It could of have just meant that I was at a club or good party and it was contact.

False Positives here we come............

I bet it will be no faster than the lines simply due to that alone. People will get picked out left and right and subjected to worse measures than they are now for plain stupidity.

Re:sooo

[kehren77]

Or possible from True Lies?

Re:sooo

[pnewhook]

I don't have to remove shoes or belt while traveling in Canada, but I've been told to remove them in the US.

Re:sooo

[zero0ne]

Don't forget True Lies.

Re:sooo

[Anonymous Coward]

Or true lies.

captcha : indecent

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

So the terrorist just have to go through the airport and find out whether they are "high", "medium" or "low" risk.

Obviously the "high"s and "medium"s get assigned other tasks.

Re:Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

[smelch]

You mean all they have to do is blow up the tunnels. This is a fraud stacked on more fraud stacked on bullshit with bullshit sprinkles. Why the hell are we so afraid of our passenger airplanes being blown up? Holy shit, after all the school shootings in America you can still pretty much just walk in to a school, why are airlines so risky? Stupid stupid STUPID!

Re:Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

[blair1q]

They already do that.

Re:Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

[Ron Bennett]

Airline security isn't about protecting passengers, though that's a side-benefit, but rather protecting structures / areas deemed important by the power-elite from attack by aircraft.

Hence, planes / terminals / people on the ground being blown up is of little concern compared to planes themselves being used as weapons, such in New York City back on Sept 11, 2001.

Re:Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

[Zeek40]

Because the military industrial complex saw the opportunity to sell expensive, unnecessary shit to an ignorant, fearful populace, and they're damn good at getting the government to give them money to waste. End result: The TSA, who has never once in its entire history prevented someone who tried to sneak a bomb on a plane from doing so. Exactly three people have tried to sneak bombs or bomb-making materials through the TSA's security since 9/11. All three have succeeded.

Re:Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You mean all they have to do is blow up the tunnels.

There's a joke about Russia in there.
How about: In Soviet Russia, Airport Blows You Up!

Re:Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Three words: Reinforced cockpit doors.

If I recall, this was done immediately.

Re:Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

[berashith]

actually, there have been three people who tried to sneak bombs on with malicious intent, who were all successful and stopped by actions of people on the plane. There have been many other successful attempts by people testing the system and the workers who have also been successful. To be fair, those tests do not have complete disclosure, and most likely the only ones to get any publicity are the ones that failed to get caught. We also cant know if there have been any attempts that have been thwarted on the ground, but for the level of inconvenience, I dont really accept anything less than 100%.

Re:Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

[SnarfQuest]

They do this because the TSA is so good at capturing terrorists with their fancy equipment. Just last week, keeping the average caught per week, they successfully captured 0 more terrorists! With specs like that, how can you possibly think of reducing their effectiveness by decreasing their technological advantages. Remember how proudly they displayed the Rifle they confiscated from the GI Joe doll! Three whole inches of plastic mayhem! This new technology might DOUBLE their effectiveness!

Re:Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Lock the cockpit door and put an armed air marshal on every plane. There, I saved you billions of dollars and invasion of privacy.

Profiling?

[Anonymous Coward]

"passengers would be categorized based on the results of a government risk assessment that is put into a chip in a passenger's passport or other identification"

And does that assessment include the color of your skin? Because that's what it really sounds like they're talking about.

Re:Profiling?

[Anonymous Coward]

not at all.

it does however include your chosen religion.
(you are high risk whenever you do not have the main religion of the country.

Re:Profiling?

[UncleTogie]

Actually, I wanna know exactly how they're assessing it. Can I challenge it? Can I find out what my "score" is? Is there anything they're not taking into account?

Re:Profiling?

[tompaulco]

And does that assessment include the color of your skin? Because that's what it really sounds like they're talking about.
I know this is an unpopular opinion to have, but if statistics show that people with a certain color of skin have been more likely to blow up a plane in the past, why would you not use that? Just because it is not politically correct? I think it is stupid to ignore a statistic that could save lives just because some people might get offended.
Pattern recognition is a skill that we have developed over millions of years and it has kept us from becoming a footnote in history. Why should we throw that away?
I'm not saying we should anal probe every Saudi that gets on a plane, I'm just saying exercise whatever extra precaution the statistics bear up. And if other statistics are better indicators, obviously we should give them more weight.

Re:Profiling?

[Znork]

Statistically, nobody is a terrorist.

Re:Profiling?

[Kielistic]

Because it is a terrible and flawed metric. There are an absolute tonne of 'brown' people. A small(ish?) subset of those despise americans and an even smaller subset of those are willing to blow up innocent americans. Racial profiling makes ignorant and uneducated people feel better/safer but really just pollutes your false positives with a few billion extras while making it easier for people who don't look quite so brown to walk right by.

Re:Profiling?

[Anonymous Coward]

I usually use fake IDs when I blow myself up.

Re:Profiling?

[tragedy]

Because we know from experience that they won't hire good statisticians to really figure it out and, even if they do, their advice will be overridden by people who trust their "gut instinct".

the checkpoint of the future

[nimbius]

is separated accordingly by threat level so im reading, which i anticipate means i'll need to hop in the "brown people" line at some point in the near future and turn myself inside out in the fervent act of proving im patrio-tastic enough to board a jetliner owned by a company my tax dollars have likely bailed out numerous times.

this country sucks.

Re:the checkpoint of the future

[Anonymous Coward]

>> this country sucks.

You voted for it. If not you, then your neighbors did.

Re:the checkpoint of the future

[Anonymous Coward]

this country sucks.

then go somewhere better.

Give me directions, and I'll be on my way.

Re:the checkpoint of the future

[Ogive17]

"The International Air Transport Association unveiled a mock-up Tuesday in Singapore "

Do you hate the entire world?

Re:the checkpoint of the future

[the_fat_kid]

I think that you misunderstand the "brown people" line.
It will merge with the "poor people" line just before the waiting bus.
The airlines do everything in their power to give us reasons not to fly. Now they can make that a policy.
Then they can cry about their failing business and demand more of our taxes.
They will gladly take brown or poor taxes, just as long as they don't have to see them.

The one up side I can see to this is "rich" and "white" people being treated like cattle. Someone has to fly coach.

Re:the checkpoint of the future

[calderra]

Yeah, just name a country that isn't completely racist against some group, and that doesn't fearmonger its citizenry. Should be easy, right?

Re:the checkpoint of the future

[ThunderBird89]

Up, mostly. I'd aim for Mars or Alpha Centauri, or whatever place has an oxygen atmosphere and liquid water...

Re:the checkpoint of the future

[just_another_sean]

Sometimes. More and more lately... Reading TFA? Definitely right now.

Re:the checkpoint of the future

[_anomaly_]

The airlines do everything in their power to give us reasons not to fly.

Now, I don't have any proof or evidence to back this up, but common sense tells me the airlines want everyone to fly, and if it were up to them, I'd bet they would eliminate any kind of security check and load them cattle up as quickly, and as profitably, as possible.

Re:the checkpoint of the future

[Quiet_Desperation]

My neighbors suck.

Your move. :-)

Re:the checkpoint of the future

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada.

Re:the checkpoint of the future

[GameboyRMH]

Well, see ya in the brown people line!

Re:the checkpoint of the future

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being a dick, Scott!

Re:the checkpoint of the future

[Anonymous Coward]

"It will merge with the "poor people" line just before the waiting bus."

I guess they'll be sitting in the back of the bus and the plane as well?

Re:the checkpoint of the future

[Methuseus]

Nice to say in theory, but not so easy in practice.

Well

[Flyerman]

What's the cancer risk then? How much radiation do we need to absorb in the name of safety? Will people be restricted from flying too often to keep them safe from our invasive scans?

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

People will absorb all sort of radiation if you say "it's for your safety!!".

How many people in the US have unnecessary CT scans for "peace of mind" reasons? For example, http://www.pomscan.com/

So, whole body CT scans for peace of mind? - you might as well live in the Fukushima evacuation zone. Yet the same people will freak out 1000s of km away about the latter while scheduling the former.

As for total dosage to skin from the airport scanner? Who knows. But if there is a problem, the first people that will be fucked over will be the TSA agents standing next to the xray machine for hours on end.

Re:Well

[swanzilla]

A twenty foot scanner is about ten times longer than the current scanner...I would say that the cancer risk is ten times higher, we will absorb ten times more radiation, and will be able to fly one tenth as often. The terrorists have just won by another order of magnitude.

Re:Well

[WonkoS]

Actually, you probably absorb more radiation from the altitude of the flight than any checkpoints.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

The tunnel is 20 feet long. Doesn't mean the back-scatter scanner is that long, or that it uses the same dosage as present scanners, or that that form of radiation has any cancer risk whatsoever, or... oh wait, this is the Internet, carry on.

Re:Well

[LanMan04]

Actually, you probably absorb more radiation from the altitude of the flight than any checkpoints.

That's probably true. The issue is that in-flight radiation is a NECESSARY part of flying, while scanning is completely useless and provides no benefit whatsoever.

Re:Well

[WonkoS]

Yes, but if the difference is more than an order of magnitude, and I suspect it may well be, then arguing that you are avoiding flying because of the radiation of the security checkpoint is just plain silly. Better to start some low altitude zeppelin service, remembering to use helium.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the dosage is (by your calculations) 10 times higher, the cancer risk is more than 10 times higher. Why? Well, imagine breathing 10 minutes' worth of air in one minute. If you don't have a serious problem from trying to process all that oxygen in the first minute (overdosing), then I'll give you a medal.
To give you a realistic scenario: we're exposed to radiation everyday. The thing is that our bodies can cope with the dosage. Now, imagine walking into the middle of the Fukushima or Chernobyl reactors. What's the problem? The higher radiation levels over a shorter period of time - dosage.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

The additional cancer risk is essentially zero. Here are a couple of charts to put things in perspective.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=exposed-graphic-science

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Airport backscatter scanner: 0.0001 mSv
Eating one banana: 0.0001 mSv

Still worried?

Re:Well

[Bengie]

I saw this post as a +1 Funny. I see other's are trying to tear it apart.

Just look at the punch line: "The terrorists have just won by another order of magnitude."

Re:Well

[hedwards]

Yes, but that's because there's no way around that at the moment without drastically reducing the fuel efficiency of planes and increasing the cost of flight. Whereas this is additional radiation for no practical purpose.

Re:Well

[WonkoS]

Are you calling security theater and keeping the larger set of sheep from panicking and not flying impractical? We could fake it, but as you well know, any "fake" theater would be found out and backfire. Gotta make it look good. Anywho, all that radiation should be good for something, I probably need to tag the post with "and we welcome our new spidey-sensing overlords!"

Re:Well

[AmiMoJo]

You get more radiation on the flight itself if going long distance at high altitude. Pilots and cabin crew get it even worse, but are still only at about 10mSv/year. 100/year is the legal limit.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey dip, one radiation passes through you being evenly distributed. The other stops at the skin. 5 units stopping at the skin layer is more destrimental than 40 unit being absorbed everywhere. Especially since both types are VERY different, and do not do the same things to the body. The 40unit is also a figure for those high altitude, long, international flights. Not the local jaunts most people take that fly lower. Stop spouting garbage.

Re:Well

[tragedy]

I will absorb more heat from the room I'm sitting in right now over the time period of a typical flight than I would from 30 seconds under the pencil-thin flame of a MAPP torch. Nevertheless, I would much rather spend the four hours sitting comfortably in this room than 30 seconds under the torch flame. Four hours in the room will barely hurt me at all aside from a little normal aging damage, 30 seconds under the torch, depending on where it's applied, could blind me, deafen me, paralyze me, destroy my hands and feet, or even kill me. It has been pointed out over and over again that the radiation from these scanners is deposited over a tiny volume relative to the overall volume of a human body and that it's done over a dramatically shorter period of time than a flight. Some radiation risks are cumulative, others depend on intensity. Once again, think heat vs temperature.

Re:Well

[John Hasler]

Are you calling security theater and keeping the larger set of sheep from panicking and not flying impractical?

It's the theatre that frightens people. They conclude that things must really be bad to necessitate such extreme measures.

Unfortunately, those who decide on the measure are people too...

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

A counter-argument is that it could be the same total dosage if it's a lower incident source (per second spent on the walkway). We don't know. But if it's more sensitive as well... yeah, unlikely.

Re:Well

[cultiv8]

Walk quick. Walk very quickly.

Re:Well

[dudpixel]

Well at present you are exposed to more radiation while flying than when going through the scanners, and I wouldn't expect that to change.

All the same, I cant see this reducing the number of people who will not fly due to the inconvenience of things like this. If anything, it'll just put even more people off.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Airport backscatter scanner: 0.0001 mSv

Citation required.

I stopped flying.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm one of the lucky ones: I don't have a job-related need to take an airplane, so I haven't flown for the last few years.

Seriously: the TSA has proven time and again that they can't be trusted with wiping their own ass, much less handling security, privacy, or customer relations.

I feel bad for the airlines, and I miss going places I can't drive, but I cannot stomach their security theatre, invasiveness, or sexual assaults.

Re:I stopped flying.

[the_fat_kid]

I miss flying but I feel no remorse for the airlines.
They have been screwing passengers for years.
I don't fly any more either. I do miss the fast travel but not the multi hour lay overs.

Re:I stopped flying.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in the exact same situation. I used to enjoy flying, but I have no desire to fly until the TSA goes away.

I have no sympathy for the airlines either. They're apparently too stupid to realize what's best for passengers is best for them. They have the ability to make the TSA go away by lobbying Congress and threatening to discontinue service at airports with a TSA presence, but they won't do it.

Re:I stopped flying.

[jbrandv]

I didn't stop flying. I went out and got my pilot's license, then I built an airplane. Now I fly every chance I get! No lines, no TSA, no long waits except for the weather. I have crossed the country multiple times now and have met some of the nicest people at small airports. Yes, I only cruise at about 200 mph but since I don't have to be at the airport 2 hours early and can fly to small airports nearer to my destination, I can almost always beat the airlines. ;-)

"And loving it!"

Re:I stopped flying.

[Anonymous Coward]

I also haven't flown since the implementation of the advanced security measures. Its a shame because I really want to see the world. I just don't want to be harassed by security puppets to do so.

Re:I stopped flying.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the TSA has proven to be worse than even corrupt law enforcement. At least when cops feel you up, they try to hid it (unless you've already been arrested in which case, criminals actually do smuggle stuff into jail using their butts all the freaking time). TSA, it's part of procedure whether you have done anything or not.

Re:I stopped flying.

[LanMan04]

I didn't stop flying. I went out and got my pilot's license, then I built an airplane. Now I fly every chance I get!

It must be nice to have a million dollars.

Re:I stopped flying.

[SCHecklerX]

It appears that the terrorists have won.

Re:I stopped flying.

[ToadMan8]

A hundred hours of flying in rented / club planes, instruction, FAA fees, etc., to get your Private and Instrument Rating will set you back around $10k - $12k. A 200 MPH kit like the RV-7 will set you back around $100k.

It's not cheap, to be sure, but it's not a millionaire sort of thing. I don't mean to be argumentative, just to realign the elitist image many non-pilots have of the small piston airplane crew.

If you are willing to settle with 130 mph instead of 200, a serviceable used Skyhawk can be had for less than the price of a decked-out F-150, and get similar fuel mileage.

Re:I stopped flying.

[Anonymous Coward]

What did you build? And how much did it run? I considered assembling a little Zenith 801, but after the engine, it would have ran about $80K which would have soaked up everything I could spare for years. Decided to build a boat instead.

Re:I stopped flying.

[ChinggisK]

Just out of curiosity, how much did it cost to build your own plane? How much do you spend on fuel for a cross country trip? Etc. etc...

Re:I stopped flying.

[Bengie]

The average American spends decades paying off a mortgage for $100k house, they're not going to purchase a $100k plane.

Re:I stopped flying.

[EPAstor]

Out of curiosity, how much did that cost you? A ballpark estimate of startup cost, I mean - the lessons to get your license, and the airplane components. Ongoing costs would be interesting too, I confess, but that's more easily researched.

Re:I stopped flying.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'll take my chances with the groping and the X-rays. The accident rate for privately-owned and -flown aircraft is far higher than it is for commercial airlines.

Re:I stopped flying.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod you fucking excellent. I've always dreamed of doing that, but I live in the UK which is too small for it to be worthwhile. And I have too much to do. Bah.

Re:I stopped flying.

[I'm not really here]

Yep, this is the route I hope to pursue in the next few years. I hope to buy a Terrafugia or similar, once available and prices are in the $100k range. It'll be nice to drive to the airport, fly to the next airport, and drive to my final destination. 110-115mph isn't the fastest in the world, but with so many small airports, and so much traffic on the major highways during rush hour, for short ( 500 mile ) trips, it will beat out flying commercial any day.

Re:I stopped flying.

[GodfatherofSoul]

I thought about getting my pilot's license. The one thing that turned me off is the low performance evolution of accessible private aircraft. I'm not saying I want a jet fighter, but it's crazy to think that 70 years ago we had prop jobs that could do 400+ mph and the fastest accessible aircraft for the average Joe goes 100-200 mph. Plus, prices are insane. My dream trip would be to fly a private plane with a 4-some to Vegas or the mountains, but that's not realistic for me.

Re:I stopped flying.

[I'm not really here]

stupid HTML stripping... that was "short ( < 500 mile ) trips"

Re:I stopped flying.

[hobarrera]

You know, there are dozens of countries that lack such ridiculous measures, you could just move there. Why stay if you can't be truly free to do anything you please?

Re:I stopped flying.

[Rich0]

$100k is something like $1k/month for 30 years. You could fly first class to Europe a few times a year for those kinds of costs. That is an awful lot to spend just to avoid lines. Plus, 95% of the time your plane is sitting in a hanger depreciating. Plus, that $100k plane looks like it seats 1-2, and carries about 850 lbs, of which up to 350 lbs is fuel. That is 500lbs for payload, which isn't much room for luggage (a fair bit if you're alone, and you'll be happy to just get off the ground with two).

A more realistic option is a flying club or such. Ordinary rentals are not much of an option for actual transportation - you might be able to fly for $100/hour, but when you're done they are going to want the plane back, not sitting in some other airport for a week while you're on vacation.

A flying club typically costs maybe $20k or so to join (still quite a bit of cash, but something a bit more manageable), and it still costs quite a bit to fly (what, probably $80/hr or something?). At best the operational cost will about break even with an airline, and then you're paying your loan on the $20k on top of that. Your ability to book that plane for a week or two is going to depend on the club and the days you travel - the more the club is able to have planes available the more they're going to end up having to charge up-front anyway.

Once the kids are independent and I have more spending money I'd probably pursue a pilots license and instrument rating - more for the fun than anything else. However, most affordable aircraft are simply not capable of taking a family of four (or even two) on vacation or whatever. You're going to need a twin engine for that, and the cost goes way up.

Re:I stopped flying.

[Sponge Bath]

I do miss the fast travel but not the multi hour lay overs.

Multi-hour drive to the airport and parking circus. Multi-hour check-in and security hassle. Multi-hour layovers. Multi-hour rental car circus or wait for pickup/cab.

For air travel to be relatively fast, your destination needs to be thousands of miles away.

Re:I stopped flying.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think $110,000 - $112,000 isn't millionaire money, then you are not (and probably have never been) middle class. You are wealthy and have no idea what kind of money real people actually have to spend.

And this isn't a question of saving carefully. I live in a tiny house, drive a paid-for 12-year-old car that doesn't need much maintenance, am married and have no children, and have worked steadily for years. Yet I couldn't put aside over 100 grand for an expensive hobby like flying if I wanted to. That money would go into my retirement fund, if I had that kind of cash.

Re:I stopped flying.

[antdude]

Same here. I haven't flown since the end of summer of 1993.

Re:I stopped flying.

[Phoenix666]

Amen, brother! I stopped flying as well. For regional travel in the Northeast I take the train or drive, with a preference for the train. Vastly better travel experience than any plane from any airline to anywhere.

Not being able to easily travel longer distances is a hassle. My grandmother passed away last November out west and I chose to drive to Detroit, pick up my brother, and tag team the 3 day drive out rather than put up with the TSA.

It does make me angry, though, that we have to go to these lengths to travel in our own country. It's long past time we all got into our pickups with axe handles and converged on DC to "redecorate" the place.

Re:I stopped flying.

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations.

I'm colorblind, so I'd be pretty well restricted by the FAA, and the equivalent foreign government bodies. It's only going to get worse, since it's an easy thing to blame, and good luck getting the government to relax restrictions, the sport license is a good first step, but the restrictions on that license really make it a non-starter for me.

Re:I stopped flying.

[ToadMan8]

Depends on the club, I guess.

I paid a one-time fee of $650 to get in, $60 / month in dues, and that gives me access to two C-172s, (about $80 / hr), an Archer II (~$80), Dakota ($120) and Saratoga ($140). All rentals are "wet", meaning that they include fuel. The 172s and Archer cannot take full fuel and four people, but the Dakota and Saratoga certainly can - about 800 lbs of people and baggage with full fuel.

The 172s are great for two people though; my wife and I flew direct from the Cincinnati OH area to Raleigh NC a few weekends ago in a Skyhawk. 3 hours each way, about the same cost as airline tickets, beats the hell out of the 10 hour drive through Charleston WV (there is no good route by car), and the view was better.

Re:I stopped flying.

[randyleepublic]

What kind of airplane did you build?

Re:I stopped flying.

[burris]

Sounds great, how much will it cost me per month to tie it down at an airport in the SF Bay Area? I couldn't find anything recent but it seems to me like it's going to be $250+ a month for tiedown space that isn't in the middle of nowhere.

Re:I stopped flying.

[Rich0]

How long do they let you keep them out when you're renting them? From what I've seen, the more a club charges the more permissive it tends to be about hanging onto planes for a week or whatever. Makes sense - the up-front charges cover the time the plane isn't running, and the per-hour fee covers the time that it is running.

The more expensive ones tend to encourage members to treat the planes like they own them, since to a great extent they actually do. Usually these sorts of things tend to be informal so less frequent users may subsidize more frequent users, and this isn't necessarily a horrible thing.

Re:I stopped flying.

[ToadMan8]

There is an official policy, I believe something like 3 hours / day on a long holiday weekend, 2 hours / day on a normal weekend, and 0.5 / day during the week or something, but I have taken a couple multi-day trips, haven't met the minimums, and it hasn't been a problem. I think it's one of those policies on the books to throw at people who are not aligned with the spirit of the club. There's also a 100 hr / year max rule as a result of someone essentially tying up one club plane the whole year by flying it for business. I don't think this rule has been enforced since that one guy.

Re:I stopped flying.

[ToadMan8]

I believe our club pays a couple hundred bucks per month per T-hanger, which is nice but not strictly necessary, even in the winter. I've brushed snow off of the plane several times when I was using flight school planes tied-down outside. Tie-downs are much cheaper. But, our airport is on re-purposed farm land in SW Ohio. You SF Bay Area folks have to pay for your beautiful climate, culture, views, job market, etc., somehow ;)

Chechpoint of Future SHOULD READ +1, PatRIOTic

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Propagandize some topic

2. Sell tools to "users"

3. PROFIT

Total Recall, baby

[Anonymous Coward]

Good movie, back in the pre-Guvernator-days.

Re:Total Recall, baby

[blair1q]

Back in the poster-boy-for-dianabol days.

Wealth?

[Anonymous Coward]

How wealthy do I need to be to be categorized as lowest risk?

$1M USD net worth
$10M USD net worth
$100M USD net worth
$1B USD net worth

Re:Wealth?

[jjohn24680]

Wealthy enough to own/charter your own plane.

Re:Wealth?

[jbrandv]

Not too much it seems.
1: Get your pilot's license: ~$6000
2: Build an airplane: ~$40000 and up, the sky's the limit here! You can go cheaper but it'll be slower...
3: Get a group together to afford #2 or rent your plane.
I'm not rich but I now enjoy flying again and have all the advantages of owning part of an airplane. Plus no TSA to deal with.

so no more free gropping...

[Browzer]

i can see why the nerds might be upset.

Re:so no more free gropping...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's only one 'p' in groping you knuckle-dragging retard.

i can see why the nerds might be upset.

Not too likely. Taco and the /. crew get all the hot manhand action their pallid rolls of unwashed flesh can handle down at the stalls of the Chat 'n Chew truck stop.

Re:so no more free gropping...

[Lord_Breetai]

i can see why the nerds might be upset.

I don't. Getting groped by the TSA is nothing like a Maroon 5 music video no matter how much anyone wishes it so.

I Totally Recall this moment!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like a scene out of a movie or something!

Re:I Totally Recall this moment!

[Joce640k]

That's the problem....the policy makers spend too much time watching movies.

What they really need to do is think like a terrorist. A terrorist can just blow up the queue for the security machine.

Problem 2: That sort of thinker doesn't get to build impressive shiny installations at taxpayer expense then stand in front of cameras at the official opening before going off to dinner with people in suits. At taxpayer expense.

Re:I Totally Recall this moment!

[tompaulco]

I, for one, first thought of the Simpsons, where they nuclear plant is xraying people as they come in, and instantly recognized a hunched over ape like skeleton as Homer.

I for one welcome our new tunnel overlords...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. Assuming that all the risk assessment is automated and human scanners will only enter the picture if someone is flagged. Machines are far better at being impartial than a human would. Machines wont harass you for being different.

Re:I for one welcome our new tunnel overlords...

[ThunderBird89]

Except if they're programmed to. Thing is, they also can't be persuaded that you're right.
And if they're bringing out the human Scanners, I fear for my thoughts and everything else...

Just one more reason I'm proud to be in NH

[Plugh]

New Hampshire was one of the first states to reject "Real-ID", and to hell with the (then-threatened) restrictions on air travel. I was one of the people that campaigned actively for this; one of my friends was a co-sponsor of the bill that did the opt-out, not only from Real-ID, but from "any national identification card system that may follow"

If that sounds good to you, you should check us out: http://freestateproject.org//intro/real-id

Re:Just one more reason I'm proud to be in NH

[Overzeetop]

New Hampshire Airport passenger: Live free or die!
TSA employee: I accept your offer. Termination line is to your left, down the hall.

Re:Just one more reason I'm proud to be in NH

[Jahava]

New Hampshire was one of the first states to reject "Real-ID", and to hell with the (then-threatened) restrictions on air travel. I was one of the people that campaigned actively for this; one of my friends was a co-sponsor of the bill that did the opt-out, not only from Real-ID, but from "any national identification card system that may follow"

If that sounds good to you, you should check us out: http://freestateproject.org//intro/real-id

Yeah, a social security number is way better than an actual state-issued ID. Face it, one way or another you will be uniquely identified via government-issued credentials. They might as well be strong ones... I'd prefer a well-implemented national ID over the weakly-implemented insecure one we have right now any day.

Re:Just one more reason I'm proud to be in NH

[Plugh]

We clearly have different ideas about what makes identification "strong" or desirable. If you want a super-biometric ID card with all your data in a central government-controlled repository, go right ahead... just don't expect me to go along with your plan. I've read enough history to know that one year's open, benevolent, democratic administration is no guarantor that all future governments will be so desirable.

As it turns out, NH State Law allows you to withold your social security number and home address from your driver's license. In addition, while your picture has to be on the ID card, you can require the State not to keep your image in its centralized records.

Re:Just one more reason I'm proud to be in NH

[Anonymous Coward]

False dichotomy. When they manage to cram a national ID down our throats, it won't be well-implemented. It'll be a weakly-implemented insecure one that's managed by federal agencies rather than state ones.

Re:Just one more reason I'm proud to be in NH

[fahrbot-bot]

New Hampshire Airport passenger: Live free or die!
TSA employee: I accept your offer. Termination line is to your left, down the hall.

Heh. Reminds me of the Suicide Booth scene in the first episode of Futurama, where Fry thinks it's a phone booth:

• Booth: Please select mode of death. Quick and painless or slow and horrible.
• Fry: I'd like to make a collect call.
• Booth: You have selected, "slow and horrible."

Re:Just one more reason I'm proud to be in NH

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be implying that the Real-ID system will be implemented well. What makes you think that the people who implemented the weakly-implemented insecure ID will implement the "well-implemented national ID" any better?

Re:Just one more reason I'm proud to be in NH

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no TSA agents at our airport.

Is the risk really that big?

[CastrTroy]

Is the risk really that big that we need to protect planes so much more than trains, buses, or shopping centers? As long as you secure the cockpit enough that they can't hijack the plane and ram it into a building, there's no reason to worry about somebody blowing up the plane. At least not any more than you worry about them blowing up a bus, or shopping center. Assuming that somebody wanted to cause a lot of damage, and they had acquired either a gun, or an explosive device, why would they bother trying to sneak it on an airplane instead of walking onto a city bus, subway car, or other busy place, and causing mayhem.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[Dan667]

no, this is all about a company like rapscan trying to profit from selling naked scanners.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[ThunderBird89]

Why on Earth would they try to blow up the plane if they have to go through such tight security? It's a lot easier to target the lines.

Excerpts from the last thoughts of Abdul Hassan Gamal ibn al Azad*: "I wait in line, my backpack concealing three kilograms of C4, surrounded by a layer of scrap metal and nails dipped in anti-coagulant rat poison. I wait for the line to get as long as possible to include the greatest number of people in the blast. I don't care if I die, 40 (or 42?) virgins will be my reward for fighting the Holy War in the name of the one god Allah. I trigger the detonator..."
Maybe less casualties than downing an Airbus, possibly more if the line is long and packed, and no need to risk going through security. The fact that the bomber dies first doesn't seem to be a problem when they're happy to die, and you can afford to use them like money ante poker chips, knowing you can always recruit five more for every one that's caught or killed. The checkpoints merely shifted the most vulnerable point from the air onto the ground, where the terrorists can do even more damage.

* Any semblance to living persons is purely coincidental.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[Joce640k]

You're forgetting that the head of the TSA has a huge budget and personal financial interest in the scanner companies...

People who can think about real attack scenarios don't get very far in the TSA of the 21st century. It's all about expensive, shiny machines and fancy dinners with politicians.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[jovius]

Besides in the business class you get glasses, steel forks and knives plus you can order bottled wines and champagnes.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[h4rr4r]

Try more deaths than a typical flight, being indoors does wonders for the effect of a small bomb. If Abdul Hassan Gamal ibn al Azad decides to make sure he is near a support beam/column he might get really lucky and shutdown that airport for days.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[LongearedBat]

I don't care if I die, 40 (or 42?) virgins will be my reward for fighting the Holy War

Perhaps that the question for which the answer is 42...

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even better, you recruit some naive white guy / girl to take a 'package' through security.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[fahrbot-bot]

Is the risk really that big that we need to protect planes so much more than trains, buses, or shopping centers?

no, this is all about a company like rapscan trying to profit from selling naked scanners.

And airlines protecting their expensive planes. Seriously, buses and trains are cheap by comparison -- and most (all?) U.S. passenger trains are owned/run by the government [Amtrak] - and it would be difficult to destroy an entire shopping mall in one event. Not to mention anything a hijacked plane or falling plane pieces might destroy on the ground. Damage from the other things would be relatively small in comparison - try destroying a skyscraper with a train or bus. Anyone who thinks TSA checks are to protect passengers is delusional.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[SnarfQuest]

This is all about protecting us from the last attack. We havent had any trains being flown into buildings yet, so they don't consider it a problem, yet. The politions in charge believe that a terrorist can only do one thing, and since that involves airplanes, that is where they concentrate 100% of their effort. If another successful aircraft attacck happens, it would be a political disaster for their careers. Any other type of attack, and they can say "we never expected that", which isn't an instant career ending event.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. A bomb going off in a typical flight kills everyone on the plane. On the most common commercial passenger planes, that's 100-200 people (that takes into account flights where not all the seats are full). On 747s and larger, it'd be 200-500 people. Presumably, just like a bomber would target a large crowd, they'd target flights on larger planes likely to be full, so I'd expect the higher end here.

I've been to a few major airports in my day, and the security areas are large. When people talk about bomb effects being amplified indoors, they mean small areas. Like the inside of a bus. A comparable attack would be the train station bombings in Spain some years ago, in dense rush hour crowds. That took four bombs to kill a total of 191. So no, bombing the line is not likely to kill more than bombing the plane.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[DrgnDancer]

Why does the terrorist always have a Muslim name? People get so wrapped up in the idea that Al'Queda is going to kill us that they seem to forget that the *second* largest terrorist attack ever on US soil was conducted by a corn bread white guy with an Irish name, and not all that long ago. Muslim extremists are actually responsible for a minority of terrorist activity (though granted it's a large minority).

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[JonySuede]

If I was a terrorist I would release a bio-weapon in one of those corridor. An hardened version of tuberculosis (it is easy to hardens as tuberculosis is a bacteria) would create quite a lot of terror. But I not a terrorist and those who are seems stupid so they won't either... and that is a good thing.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[ThunderBird89]

No, they're not stupid. They won't release bioweapons because bioweapons are uncontrollable, by their very nature. Once you deploy them, they will kill without discrimination, and there's nothing you can do to limit their effects to the enemy. Make it successful enough, and you're killing yourself along with your target.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[Anonymous Coward]

try destroying a skyscraper with a train or bus.

Or with a plane (but without thermite).

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[gr8_phk]

This is all about protecting us from the last attack.

No, the cockpit doors are protecting us from the last successful attack. I suppose if you count would-be shoe-bombers then the passengers protected us from the last attempted attack. I'm not sure what this is protecting us from. Why do they need to do biometric scans after you've been scanned for explosives? That makes no sense. If you want to track people (legally or not) just use face (and clothing) recognition software and inconspicuous cameras so people don't notice and don't get upset about it.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[ThunderBird89]

If I ever fly to the US, I'll be sure to buy a big block of modelling clay and an Arduino with an LCD before hand. I want to see the TSA guys' faces when they open my backpack, and see the message "BOOM HEADSHOT" on the LCD. That should show them a "real attack scenario".
I wonder if they could do anything to me, as an EU citizen, who committed no actual crime...

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have fun on the no fly list.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[JonySuede]

id. They won't release bioweapons because bioweapons are uncontrollable, by their very nature.

That is why I choose tuberculosis. It does not spread fast, a % of the population is immune to it and even if you cannot get rid of the antibiotic resistant strain it wont probably kill you.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[Anonymous Coward]

What comes first is someone claiming to have seen someone sneak past security, or someone successfully sneaking past, so that the entire terminal has to be re-screened, and they are all milling about just outside the screening area...

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[Mephistophocles]

I wonder if they could do anything to me, as an EU citizen, who committed no actual crime...

Um, yeah. They could.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[icebike]

The days of the hijack and fly into a building are over.

They ended at noon, September 11, 2001. TSA had nothing to do with this end. Passengers refusing to be sheep did.

Since then not one hijacking has been thwarted by TSA, but many have been thwarted by passengers and even small female cabin
crew who nowdays all know some basic to intermediate combat techniques.

Look, it has nothing to do with protecting the aircraft (all insured) or things on the ground.

Its all just security theater. And it will continue until people either push back, or just stop flying.
No airline will make another dime off of me till sanity returns.
 

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[Anonymous Coward]

...I don't care if I die, 40 (or 42?) virgins will be my reward for fighting the Holy War in the name of the one god Allah. I trigger the detonator...

72 dude, 72. Don't make a mistake with that number, because it is the only way us slashdotters are getting any sex, 72 at a time.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[icebike]

Why would Azad go anywhere near an airport?

So many more places you can drive to and walk in. So many devices more lethal than a bomb.
So many churches, so many schools, so many beaches, so many shopping centers, and ballgames.

Stop defending against the LAST event.

Its time for all these false security measures to end. They have hurt us more than the terrorists ever did.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[icebike]

Where do you find people that dumb these days?

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[icebike]

Muslim extremists are actually responsible for a minority of terrorist activity (though granted it's a large minority).

A minority?

I don't think so. The fact that you can only name one "corn bread" suggests that even you don't believe what you are posting.
Expand your worldview outside your immediate surroundings.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[icebike]

Make it successful enough, and you're killing yourself along with your target.

Since when has that ever proven to be a deterrent?

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[icebike]

You don't need an actual weapon to commit an actual crime. Even dry runs are actionable.

Besides, the lab tests will show explosives. It will be blown up to render it safe. Go ahead, prove them wrong.
Your protestations of modeling clay will be laughed out of court.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[icebike]

This is all about protecting us from the last attack.

No, the cockpit doors are protecting us from the last successful attack. I suppose if you count would-be shoe-bombers then the passengers protected us from the last attempted attack. I'm not sure what this is protecting us from. Why do they need to do biometric scans after you've been scanned for explosives? That makes no sense. If you want to track people (legally or not) just use face (and clothing) recognition software and inconspicuous cameras so people don't notice and don't get upset about it.

Exactly.
And the no-fly list is equally idiotic. It should be a no-fly-without a complete scan list. Especially since even babies can be added to the list.
What does it matter who flys as long as they don't have a weapon?

The whole thing is security theater. It hurts us more than Osama ever did.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess TSA doesn't play Starcraft2. Terran players always spread out their marines when banelings are around.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[BlueStrat]

Or, they can walk through one of the many (usually open and outdoors) gates to the tarmac dressed as groundcrew/maintenance, watch and wait while passengers board right to the point where they begin retracting the boardingway, then jump into a fuel truck with a backpack-bomb (toolbox bomb?), drive as close to the aircraft as possible, and detonate the bomb.

The resulting explosion(s) may even take out nearby aircraft that are loading/unloading and a good chunk of the nearby terminal building.

Access to the tarmac/flightline at most airports is stunningly easy. There is no or very little & easily defeated security outside of a "Restricted Area-Authorized Personnel Only" sign.

Strat

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[Sinthet]

I'm not an expert on United States law, but unless you could provide some alibi for having it (You're a hobbyist bringing your doodad to an electronics convention or something), they could probably deport you or at least harass you for "disturbing the peace" or something equally ridiculous. That being said, you would be my hero if you did this :D

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[suutar]

Unfortunately "having object resembling bomb" is probably prosecutable. Especially if you fly into Boston.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[DrgnDancer]

Here is a nice study on the FBI's web site about terrorism from ~2005. Scroll to the bottom. There's a list of every officially classified terrorist act on US soil since 1980 (up till the 2005 study date obviously). While 9/11 is certainly by far the single largest and most destructive (both to life and property) of these acts, I think you'll find that nothing even close to half of them were committed by Islamists. Even if you add in the Islamist stuff that's happened since 2005, you still won't get them to half of the total or even close to it.

Yes, extremist Islamic terrorism is currently on the upswing. Yes, thanks to the huge body count of 9/11 they've killed more US citizens than any other type of terrorist (though not for lack of trying by other groups in some cases). Yes, their attempts are more spectacular in general than simple arson, pipe bombs, or vandalism. No, Islamist terrorists have not committed the majority, nor even close to the majority of terrorist acts on US soil. Not even in recent years.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[icebike]

Like I said, expand your world view outside of your own back yard.

Statistics from the US don't mean much, due to successive administrations following a practice of
pushing the conflict right back into the back yards of the attackers. Not all countries have this
ability.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing the passengers of the planes was a side effect of using the planes as weapons to bring down buildings, symbols really, and yes, unfortunately a country. Body counts will hardly make the news and many other places are higher, more symbolic aggregateors of people that TSA checkpoints. Selling fear is the key. Without that we might once again be free.

Notice that the few don't stand in TSA lines or take commercial aircraft. They travel unimpeded, because they fly in smaller Lear jets that don't carry as much fuel.

If the airlines safed the fuel, the TSA lines would be gone and profitability would return to the airline industry. But, because the airlines whine about the cost of doing that, we end up with misery as a feature. Blame the airline industry. To hell with terrorists.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[DrgnDancer]

OK, how about Europol? That's the 2009 report. Interesting stuff starts around page 14 where they start with the charts that break down events, arrests, etc by type of terrorist group. There's reports from earlier years too, but nothing quite as nice as the 25 year breakdown in the FBI report.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit, you're a bunch of oblivious brainwashed idiots.

1. Board plane in a country where you're are called "freedom fighter". Take lots of nasty shit with you. Like a nuclear warhead and a collection of viruses.
2. Fly over to a country where you're called a "terrorist"
3. Crash into something with many people in it. Preferably something of a symbol to the target country.

Now tell me where the fuck any airport security checks in the target country come into play in this scheme??
Hm?

And what I described above, is what I got from an interview with an actual professional terrorist leader. (Maybe even one that you've watched too.)

Everyone who even thinks about those airport security schemes, is either living under a rock on the back side of the moon, or an ignorant brainwashed idiot. Sorry, that's the only way I can explain that much detachment from reality.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just hide an assault rifle under your longcoat until you get to where the line is. It would be hard to miss.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[John Hasler]

> Especially since even babies can be added to the list.

The "no fly list" is a list of names, not people. The natcops see a couple of mentions of a name in "intercepts" and leap to the conclusion that a villain is about to use it as a false identity.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[icebike]

So I'm not sure how that is germane?

These people, even if they are using a false identity, should get searched and scanned, and then allowed to fly.

Instead, legions of similarly named people are denied the right to fly ARBITRARILY.

Re:Is the risk really that big?

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically targeting the terminals (any terminal) would have a much larger effect in terms of bodycount than taking out a single airplane, with the obvious exception of flying said airplane into a large building filled with people (Or into a terminal).

But consider the consequences here... We can give some false sense of security to the vast majority by sorting and screening everyone who goes into a plane or perhaps even a train with you... We can't in any conceivable way secure the terminals you enter into, it is impossible, so in order to give people this sense of security (however fake) we take a high profile stance at something we CAN control.

If you really wanted to do damage you would instead pack a lorry/truck/bus with C4 (hundreds of kilos) and drive it up to the building and set it off... With a medium sized VW transporter filled with high-explosives you could take out an entire airport, thousands of people, and all the security inside. We just count on police and intelligence to be lucky enough to stop these kinds of attack...

Anyone feeling terrorized?

[blair1q]

They should start calling these pricks "annoyancizers."

Re:Anyone feeling terrorized?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I feel terrorized... by the IATA, the TSA, and the DHS.

Re:Anyone feeling terrorized?

[Anonymous Coward]

Annoyancists?

Re:Anyone feeling terrorized?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I feel terrorized... by the IATA, the TSA, and the DHS.

And by the USA.

The most interesting part

[OverTheGeicoE]

From TFA:

"Airlines are seeking ways to win back passengers put off by long and irritating airport security measures who have opted to travel instead by train, boat or car. IATA said Monday it expects the industry's profit this year to plummet to $4 billion from $18 billion last year."

It sounds like people have quit flying in droves since TSA implemented scanners and patdowns last year. Are there any other stories that could confirm this conclusion?

Re:The most interesting part

[supaneko]

I'm guessing that the massive drop in profit is because there's less terrorists flying now. Looks like the cancer machines have worked! Thank you, TSA. Thank you for protecting the children and saving the rest of us from the freedom loathing "terrists."

Re:The most interesting part

[mortonda]

*profit* declines "to $4 billion from $18 billion last year" .... Oh boo hoo. I wish I could absorb a decline in *profit* like that. yeesh.

Re:The most interesting part

[dkleinsc]

The US Bureau of Transportation Statistics actually keeps track of these things. It looks like ridership peaked in July of 2007 and has been dropping off slightly since. But that suggests that it's more tied to the fact that people aren't flying for leisure as much, probably because they're broke than due to any TSA stupidity.

Airlines are also really getting burned by the speculation in the crude oil markets that have been driving gas and other fuel prices through the roof.

Re:The most interesting part

[hedwards]

That's definitely possible, it's also possible that people are getting the message that flying is dangerous and are not willing to take the risk. That would also result in that sort of result as well. I'm sure there are other possibilities.

Re:The most interesting part

[stubob]

http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2010/html/chapter_01/chapter_01_04.html

Doesn't look like "in droves"

U.S. airlines carried 0.5 percent more domestic passengers and 4.9 percent more international passengers in the first 7 months of 2010 than during the same period in 2009. This was a reversal of 2009, when total (domestic and international) enplanements dropped 7.2 percent from the first 7 months of 2008

While total passengers were up in 2010, the number of domestic flights was down 2.1 percent for the first 7 months. Increased passenger-miles flown coupled with fewer available seat-miles produced an all-time airline industry high average load factor of 82.3 percent, up from 81.0 percent during the same period in 2009.

Looks like 2009 was off 2% from 2004. That's as far back as that webpage goes.

Re:The most interesting part

[Anonymous Coward]

We've found that the break-even between driving and flying is about 5.5 hours driving if a direct flight exists and 7 hours if a connection is required.
Monday was TSA "training day" - twice as many agents taking twice as long to scan half as many passengers. If they keep it up, I may have to add another hour to the above times.

Re:The most interesting part

[Anonymous Coward]

The drop in profits corresponds to a rise in fuel prices rather than a significant drop in passenger numbers.

http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2011/bts017_11/html/bts017_11.html

Re:The most interesting part

[Anonymous Coward]

My anecdote is not data, however:

I have actively avoided flying, sometime after the liquid restriction took place. My parents constantly offer and nearly insist on buying me tickets when I need to travel more than 2 hours by car, but I refuse adamantly. I will not be irradiated or humiliated for "convenience." (Yes, I know I get more radiation from the plane trip than the scanner, but why in the nine hells would I allow extra radiation ON TOP of that.)

If I have to travel halfway or more accross the country for buisness, I may... MAY re-think this, but I'll probably take a day or two of vacation before and after the trip to allow for train travel.

It's less convenient, but what the fuck is the point of a boycott if I give it up just because it makes my life a weeeeee bit more of a hastle?

Re:The most interesting part

[Vitriol Angst]

Sounds like someone is "terrified" by Bankers, Commodities Speculators and TSA Agents,...
But to be an actual "terrorist" you really have to come from a country that doesn't want to deal with the World Bank or the US Dollar.

You merely sound educated to me.

Re:The most interesting part

[tftp]

*profit* declines "to $4 billion from $18 billion last year" .... Oh boo hoo. I wish I could absorb a decline in *profit* like that.

As I understand, it's across the whole industry. Let's say there are 18 airlines in the USA, all equal. Each used to get $1B per year in profits. One Boeing 787 costs between 150 and 200 million dollars, so they could buy five new airplanes with that profit.

However if the profit drops to $4B, each company then has $220M. Out of this money they need to pay dividends to shareholders, and they need to expand the business. They can buy only one new airplane with this money.

So the key problem here is that airlines are playing with very expensive toys. The sums of money they have to operate with are necessarily large. But even if all the reinvestment and expansion expenses are already counted before the profit figure is obtained, still this is one major drop of profit in just one year. Those are all public companies, so the drop in their profits results in the drop of their share prices, which in turn pulls the index down...

Re:The most interesting part

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm one who has significantly reduced how often I fly thanks to the TSA nazis.

What else can they do to make me simply not want to fly anymore?

Fuck 'em.

Re:The most interesting part

[dave87656]

It sounds like people have quit flying in droves since TSA implemented scanners and patdowns last year. Are there any other stories that could confirm this conclusion?

Not only that, but a number of people I have talked to here in Germany have changed plans of going to the states on vacation and instead are going elsewhere. They feel it's too invasive and the thought of TSA being able to confiscate your laptop sounds very much like the borders to East Germany which is a harsh reminder communism for many Germans who lived on both sides of the wall.

I understand the reasons behind the laws, but I don't think they are effective. Although, I must add that I do travel a couple of times a year to the US and have been treated courteously every time and gone through the lines quickly.

real question is who want to profit from this

[Dan667]

wonder how fast this would die if the company that wants to get paid for this had to sell them at cost for no profit and the highest paid employee was not allowed to be any more than 20x the lowest paid employee with no other benefits or stock allowed.

Re:real question is who want to profit from this

[pluther]

Or if everyone outlawed all payments from this company to government officials who have the authority to purchase it...

Re:real question is who want to profit from this

[Animats]

and the highest paid employee was not allowed to be any more than 20x the lowest paid employee

Woodward Governor once had the restriction that the the CEO was paid 10x the amount of the lowest paid employee. That ended around the time Reagan took office.

Re:real question is who want to profit from this

[mehrotra.akash]

pay the lowest paid employee $100,000/month

Re:real question is who want to profit from this

[Anonymous Coward]

Great job, you've slashdot'd them. Maybe they should adopt a restriction that would pay IT 10x more than the lowest paid employee.

Re:real question is who want to profit from this

[Anonymous Coward]

There was also Partmaximum. It lasted 12 years.

Re:real question is who want to profit from this

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably wouldn't change much. You just have a satellite company with a different pay structure do the low end stuff and contract them out. High end execs get a guaranteed inroad into parent company after so many years, but until then get perks from the parent company that are a tax write off. (similar to the way many politicians get around funding / gift rules)

Re:real question is who want to profit from this

[dkleinsc]

Ben and Jerry's had that kind of rule for a while too. They got rid of it when both Ben and Jerry quit the company and they had to look for an outside CEO.

Terrorism, what terrorism?

[snsh]

Is there a pandemic of terrorism directed at airplanes which I don't know about?

Re:Terrorism, what terrorism?

[Overzeetop]

There is. There have been several dangerous passengers on board airlines in the past decade, and all of them have been unknowingly waved by security. The passengers on the airline, however, have subdued every one of them.

Note: there has never been an instance of a large bottle of Johnson's Baby Shampoo, or anything resembling it, used to blow up an airplane.

Re:Terrorism, what terrorism?

[Joce640k]

No.

Re:Terrorism, what terrorism?

[Thud457]

I dunno, "no more tears" sounds like a thinly veiled radical agenda to me...

Re:Terrorism, what terrorism?

[h4rr4r]

That is not a pandemic, that is a few isolated incidences.

Re:Terrorism, what terrorism?

[dyingtolive]

Well, yeah... and if it weren't for all these security measures, then the security wouldn't have existed to able to wave the dangerous passengers on to where they would be subdued!

I also have some volcano insurance I'd like to sell you, should you be interested. I also sell rocks that protect from bear attacks.

Re:Terrorism, what terrorism?

[tompaulco]

You don't understand. If someone brought in a large bottle of water and a 12 volt car battery, they could separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in the water and then recombine them and make a small flash.

Re:Terrorism, what terrorism?

[Jason Levine]

Exactly. In the past decade, how many millions of passengers flew without any intent of blowing up the planes or doing any other kind of harm? How many people boarded airplanes with the intent to do harm (hijack, blow up, or even just threaten)? I don't have the figures on hand but if 500,000,000 flew without intent to do harm and 500 flew intending to harm others, then the terrorist-to-passenger ratio is 0.0001%. And my guesstimate is likely on the high side.

When I fly I'm not scared of some terrorist killing us all. I'm scared of mechanical failure, weather-related issues and TSA overreaching causing inconvenience/loss of rights. The first is the responsibility of the airlines to prevent. The second is out of everyone's hands. The third is the government overreaching in a desperate attempt to be able to say "Hey, look! We're doing something!"

Re:Terrorism, what terrorism?

[hedwards]

Of course there isn't, which is how you know that the TSA and various airport security outfits are effectual. Also, my cell phone keeps tigers away, which is obviously the case because I haven't once been eaten to death by tigers when I've been carrying it.

Re:Terrorism, what terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

If snowglobes are outlawed, only terrorists will have snow globes.

*shake* *shake* *shake*

Oooh, pretty. It's just like winter!

Re:Terrorism, what terrorism?

[Vitriol Angst]

Wow, talk about a "hidden feature"!

I'm so glad I've kept my cell phone, even though it can NEVER get calls in the building I work at -- just preventing Tiger attacks alone is worth the monthly fees.... ... go TSA!

Re:Terrorism, what terrorism?

[Vitriol Angst]

They can DO THAT NOW with a laptop battery and the WATER ON THE PLANE! .... shhh, let's not point out that you can NEVER stop a bomb from getting on a plane as long as you have passengers. Merely pointing out the flaws in their logic can put you on a security watch list.

He can't.

[Jon.Laslow]

He would move, but he's been deemed 'High Risk' so his government won't let him travel.

Are things that are easy to blow up still allowed?

[bolt_the_dhampir]

Can I still bring a cell phone and a laptop battery, fully charged and with their power controllers removed? Can I still bring a carry-on bag with two 1 meter reinforced steel rods connecting the handle, without anyone wondering if it could be dismantled and the steel rods used as quite effective swords? And will they still take my pencil, so I can't bring one to take notes while I make the laptop battery explode? Will they still not allow my modded PSP because it's see-through and the sight of electronics scares the shit out of them?

UNAS

[Anonymous Coward]

passengers would be categorized based on the results of a government risk assessment that is put into a chip in a passenger's passport or other identification

I, for one, enjoy being classified as Unaffiliated Subversive, with limited access to public buildings and no right to travel aboard. Now, who do I have to kill to get of the list? Everybody?

So how long

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you see jobs advertised along the lines of "Only security risk Tier 3 candidates need apply"

Can we see the information used to classify us?

[Anonymous Coward]

...Like a credit report?

Always of the future

[halcyon1234]

Given that you spend forever in line waiting to get to their security checkpoints, I'd say they're already "of the future"

They're reducing prices?

[ClubStew]

...while reducing the hassles of boarding a plane that deter some people from flying.

So they're reducing prices for luggage and fuel? The hiked ticket prices to cover the fuel hike in 2009, as well as tacked on additional fees for luggage, obesity, etc. Prices didn't drop back down much compared to the hike, and then they hike prices again for the 2011 oil scare.

That's pretty much what keeps me from flying.

Only one way!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's only one way I plan on supporting ANY new scanning procedures.

Anyone subjected personal abuse as defined by criminal law, or unauthorized access to maintained information, by personnel handling the screening or maintaining the information that results in disruption of my ability to fly as scheduled, is subject to prosecution equivalent to criminal penalty under the law, or financial compensation to me.

Tit for tat people. Short of being put on a watch-list, which is another argument entirely, there's absolutely NO REASON a TSA screener should have legal authority to disrupt my schedule.

Hilarious.

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, you can walk right onto your friendly, neighborhood general aviation airfield, fly your Cessna or Twin Otter to your not-too-far-off commercial field, and land behind all this elaborate security with your airline ticket in-hand. Until all our airports are sealed beneath impenetrable domes, the front and back doors will stand in sharp contrast. (Not like this is about security anyhow.)

Re:Hilarious.

[ColdWetDog]

Meanwhile, you can walk right onto your friendly, neighborhood general aviation airfield, fly your Cessna or Twin Otter to your not-too-far-off commercial field, and land behind all this elaborate security with your airline ticket in-hand. Until all our airports are sealed beneath impenetrable domes, the front and back doors will stand in sharp contrast. (Not like this is about security anyhow.)

Don't worry, they're trying real hard to close that door. Now, the little gate that has poorly vetted cabin crew who are allowed to roam in the cabin unsupervised and who have gone through only the most minimal screening before coming on to the tarmac. That gate is pretty much open....

Same with the guy driving the thousand gallon tank of jet fuel.

Re:Hilarious.

[jbrandv]

If you have a Cessna or Twin Otter why would you go to a commercial field? I avoid them like the plague. Just hop in and fly to your destination, screw the commercial airlines.

Re:Hilarious.

[jbengt]

Last time I went through security at an airport, I brought a camera, a laptop, and a bag full of tools and didn't get scanned, or even have the bag opened. This is because I was entering the secure-side utility tunnel from the non-secure side of the basement and had a security ID card that opened the door when I swiped it and entered my PIN. There was a security guard there, but she just waved us on.
Of course, in order to get the card, I had to be fingerprinted and sign a form indicating that I hadn't been convicted of murder, arson, drug possession, hijacking, and other felony crimes in the last 10 years . So I guess if I had been convicted 11 years ago, I could theoretically still get a security badge.

Embedded in the passport?

[Caerdwyn]

Wouldn't a scarlet "A" tattooed on the forehead work better?

Oh, wait. That would require a trial. And a conviction. And facing your accuser. And a government that isn't becoming materially worse than the "terrorists" it claims it is protecting you from.

Sometimes I think the army is pointing their guns at the wrong would-be-oppressors.

Re:Embedded in the passport?

[Otter Popinski]

Sometimes I think the army is pointing their guns at the wrong would-be-oppressors.

Agreed. Obviously a military junta would be WAAAAY better at respecting our rights.

Re:Embedded in the passport?

[Caerdwyn]

Hyperbole. Internet.

In any event, all of the soldiers in the US Army I know take the Constitution much more seriously than most of the jackasses on Capitol Hill, who place their political careers above... well... everything. I don't advocate a military junta, of course not. The ones doing it would be politicians in uniform, not soldiers, and it would be more of the same. What I'm saying is that there is a reason that a new, entirely political-in-nature bureau with a de facto prosecutorial immunity (the TSA) was created rather than giving the duty of airport security to local police, the military, or the FBI. By creating a new agency from scratch, you can populate its upper echelons with people prescreened to not have any real issue with grinding Constitutional protections into dust; you won't have to weed out the ones who won't play ball if they're never there to begin with. The aforementioned other agencies have people with inconvenient ideas about the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution (certainly not all of them, but enough to cause trouble). The TSA? No such problem. No problem at all. And that's not hyperbole.

Re:Embedded in the passport?

[Rich0]

Yup. What is the average passenger going to think when they see a guy go through the "high risk" line and end up sitting next to them on the plane? If they sneeze everybody around them will be yelling for an air marshal.

It would seem smarter to me to keep things uniform so that it isn't subject to the risks of reverse engineering your profiling technique. Just have a bunch of parallel tunnels and everybody gets the full treatment.

If they just figure out how to screen people without making them remove their shoes and empty their pockets that would get rid of 95% of the wait right there.

Re:Embedded in the passport?

[Vitriol Angst]

You are thinking like someone who was actually concerned with SECURITY.

But it's really about the theater, and people need to KNOW that they are under surveillance -- and FEEL that there is a threat.

Making things comfortable, convenient, and unobtrusive defeats the whole purpose -- seriously, just mentioning such a thing at the TSA would probably put you on the "mop the floors" detail.

keep moving!

[Thud457]

Mars for Martians! We don't want your kind here.

Re:keep moving!

[ThunderBird89]

I request asylum under the Shadow Proclamation!

Re:keep moving!

[Quiet_Desperation]

You're right. We're sorry. Here's some blankets as a peace offering.

caste system extension

[Anonymous Coward]

so the rich and powerful and their minions can fly unheeded by security

passenger differentiation, aka profiling

[Impish]

The TSA has been working for the last six months on developing a system that could differentiate passengers by security risk to cut down on needless checks, Pistole said. "One size does not fit all," Pistole said.

They are finally thinking of using profiling rather than treating every person (old ladies in wheelchairs and babies included!) as a potential terrorist? That isn't the 'future', they could do that now ... of course this would require them to hire better than bottom-of-the-barrel employees. I'd rather they pay the employees more and give them training than spend loads of cash on unproven and invasive technology.

Re:passenger differentiation, aka profiling

[h4rr4r]

It also would not work. Thing dingbat that decided to roast his chestnuts was not an Arab.

I would rather they just stop with all the BS, lock the cabin door and call it over with.

Re:passenger differentiation, aka profiling

[Missing.Matter]

Thing dingbat that decided to roast his chestnuts was not an Arab.

That's racial profiling, and you're right, it does not work. Too many false positives, and overly susceptible to false negatives. What does work is behavioral profiling, and it seems to me the main reason it's not being used is that people (like you just have) confuse the two and assume all profiling is bad!

Re:passenger differentiation, aka profiling

[h4rr4r]

No, the real reason it is not used is because it is expensive and error prone. Drugs are a fairly simple way to defeat it, with enough Valium you could be calm during anything.

Re:passenger differentiation, aka profiling

[Vitriol Angst]

You would ALSO be interested to know, that the "dingbat that decided to roast his chestnuts" was LET ON by the CIA.

The State Department wanted him kicked off the plane, and the CIA over-road that by saying he was part of an "active investigation."
http://open.salon.com/blog/gordon_wagner/2010/02/03/cia_shielded_flight_253_underwear_bomber
>> There as a Congressional investigation into the matter, and the Senator chairing the investigation got bugged by the same crew that "investigated" ACORN, believe it or not.

>> The OTHER question you should ask, is; why did someone go to all the trouble of procuring C4, and getting this kid on a plane and NOT telling him it requires an electric charge to set it off?

Not such a good thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly what I was thinking.

Although anything that doesn't require me to remove my shoes and belt is a good thing. Can't stand traveling to the US for that reason.

When compared to being irradiated an order of magnitude more than usual, I prefer taking off my shoes.

Re:Not such a good thing...

[pnewhook]

You realize you get far more radiation while actually flying at high altitudes than you get from the scanners?

Re:Not such a good thing...

[kf6auf]

You realize that not all radiation is the same right? For a simplistic view of photon radiation, there are high energy photons (x-rays and gamma-rays) with an absorption length of several meters of human tissue which distribute an even dose throughout your tissue and then there are relatively low-energy photons with an absorption length of about a millimeter of human tissue which are consequently absorbed predominantly by your skin, concentrating the dose there.

The TSA claims to be using the low-energy kind that concentrate the dose on your skin which would likely cause skin cancer. (I haven't looked up the absorption spectrum of melanin, but I think it drops off before we get to the soft x-ray region so dark skinned people may be just as susceptible as pasty white /.ers.)

Re:Not such a good thing...

[pnewhook]

I think, you've been misinformed. The new airport scanners use either low density (not low energy) x-rays, or high frequency RF. Both just barely penetrate clothing and do not go though your entire body.

Even the x-ray body scanners only emit enough radiation to be the equivalent of a few minutes of a high altitude flight.

On the plus side

[calmofthestorm]

I always loved the dark, oppressive feel of totalitarian regimes and oppressive in books/movies/video games, now I get to live^H^H^H^H pretend to live in one every time I fly!

Re:Are things that are easy to blow up still allow

[Missing.Matter]

Will they still not allow my modded PSP because it's see-through and the sight of electronics scares the shit out of them?

Does this go with a story? Would love to hear it.

Something like this would do the trick

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, that sounds exactly as if it would do the trick - they'd finally get me to stop flying for real. DO NOT WANT!

great

[Charliemopps]

It's good to know that if someone does steal my identity, all I'll have to do to reset my password is have a cornea transplant.

Re:great

[Arlet]

No, you only need an iris transplant. You can keep your corneas.

Not a scarlet "A"

[curio_city]

But a scarlet "T"

Because...

[denzacar]

All you need to bypass such level of "security" is to find a willing participant with skin color which is not critical.
And you probably only need to do it once. Get all skin colors up to "critical level" and voila - everyone is a potential terrorist once more.
Or no one is, depending on your perspective.

Prioritizing according to clearly visible and easily circumventable markers is a poor security technique.
Might as well look only for people holding a stick of dynamite in one hand and a lit lighter in the other.

Checkpoint of the Past?

[Anonymous Coward]

.. they are looking for liquids and scanning shoes.

Re:Checkpoint of the Past?

[PPH]

.. they are looking for liquids and scanning shoes.

And I've been standing in line so long that now my shoes are full of liquid.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's sort of obvious, isn't it?

[Quiet_Desperation]

Er, because there is no organized group of crazy dumbasses specifically targeting schools for destruction?

If the miseryshits suddenly shifted their focus from planes to American schools, you'd see a massive, hysterical rise in security in the schools.

Re:It's sort of obvious, isn't it?

[smelch]

Who is targeting planes? The people that blew up an airport in russia (not a plane), subways in Madrid, shopping centers in Israel, cathedrals in France? But suddenly they're all attacking planes? Yeah, I don't buy it. I think the only people with a fascination for planes are us.

Re:It's sort of obvious, isn't it?

[Quiet_Desperation]

OK. You do that. Say hi to the missus.

Re:Are things that are easy to blow up still allow

[Ambvai]

I've taken cane swords on planes recently and a heavy-duty multitool that I had no idea I had around the world for the last 20 years. In one case in 2007, I forgot I was using a balisong [butterfly switchblade, in some circles] as a keychain and was in the security line when I removed it, briefly entertained the idea of leaving the line to send it back home when I noticed the guard beckon me to a station. Tossed it into my laptop bag and went through security with no problems.

It's all about the money and no-bid contracts

[WillAffleckUW]

As a former regional Security Officer with counter-terrorism and explosives experience, I can tell you that all this security will do pretty much nothing to stop real terrorist attacks by organized groups.

But, hey, live in Fear. That's what the terrorists want you to do.

Re:It's all about the money and no-bid contracts

[Vitriol Angst]

The terrorists AND the security equipment salesman....

In other news...

[GameboyRMH]

...Al Quaeda today unveiled their concept of the Terrorist of the Future.

The Terrorist of the Future will travel often to various trade shows to build up a clean record of frequent travel and will have no criminal background. Ideally he'll be a white Midwestern man with a military background, but in any case he'll be 100% American - at least a 3rd generation immigrant, speaking good "English" with a US regional accent, sipping a Starbucks in one hand and fiddling with an iPhone in the other, wearing current trendy clothes and a stylish haircut with little or no beard, shooting the shit with anyone nearby about the latest trash on TV (he'll be very friendly). His religion will be listed as atheist or Christian on any official government surveys.

After going through the Low Threat security line he'll sit down on his window seat on the plane, and once at cruising altitude, press a few buttons on his phone, and say "Hahaha, that's totally awesome Jeff, but you know what's really cool? ALLAHU AKBAR!!!!" at the same moment that he taps a button on his iPhone that sets off the C4 packets implanted in his body.

Re:In other news...

[Vitriol Angst]

The terrorist of the future will ACTUALLY be a traveling salesman, who gets given a drug that allows him to succumb to suggestion.

You don't think all these date-rape drugs didn't get designed in a lab, do you?

>> Also, if you are in the Privileged Class, you don't have ANY security to get onto a private airplane. So, the terrorist of the future, will simply hop on the Leer Jet. Or they could skip all that and just show up at a WallMart -- but of course, that would really hurt "SALES" and I don't think the Terrorist of the future will be ALLOWED to hurt corporations -- just citizens and their travel.

Security tunnels

[Anonymous Coward]

Low Risk - you walk through the passive sensor tunnel

Medium Risk - you walk through the X-ray tunnel

High Risk - you walk through the gamma ray tunnel...

Whoosh.

[Anonymous Coward]

We are discussing security in this thread.

It's not about the money

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, "Rapiscan"? They're in it for the lulz.

No worries

[Arancaytar]

If you opt out, they might still give you the special service with happy ending.

still too risky

[night_flyer]

need to implant a chip in the person

We're too sensitive to terrorism

[GodfatherofSoul]

Hate to say it, but I think the only thing that'll curb the drive for absolute security is if terrorist attacks are frequent enough for the public to come to some level of acceptance of the risk. I wonder if that's why we've seen so few attacks?

Forget Security

[bartoku]

Why not just build planes that cannot be hijacked and buildings that can withstand a plane hitting them, and forget all this non-sense?
Lock the cockpit door. See the the Empire State building July 28, 1945 for how to build a proper building in New York.
Has to be cheaper to higher some security guard to sit on ever plane, he can slap anyone around who is looking like they want to cause problems.
No more security theater.

Discrimination

[bjartur]

And how exactly, will they differentiate people? Nation? Date of birth?

Why not.

[Fuzzums]

If the government doesn't trust people, want to know everything about them, and actually sees people in general as a risk, then why don't they just kill everybody tha.. oh wait. never mind saying that.

Is it Stupid or Evil?

[Vitriol Angst]

That's my only question here; Is this plan to perfect Identity scanning STUPID or is it EVIL?

Doesn't it occur to anyone, that someone who is going to BLOW THEMSELVES UP, doesn't really need to worry about their own identity AFTER?

A terrorist can also grab some good family man, tell him his wife and kids will die a horrible, painful death, and load him up with C4 -- or tell him they need to smuggle something -- whatever.

>> The ONLY purpose that tracking someone's identity will serve, is controlling the population. Which, I fear, is more the goal with this security apparatus. I'm much more afraid of a Perfect ID system than I am of terrorists -- because with Perfect ID, the Corporate-controlled government can abuse anyone with impunity, and the only people who ever get arrested are those who challenge the system.

You know, because the only rich bastards who molest ladies are socialists or whistle-blowers.

Re:Is it Stupid or Evil?

[John Hasler]

A terrorist can also grab some good family man, tell him his wife and kids will die a horrible, painful death, and load him up with C4 -- or tell him they need to smuggle something -- whatever.

The IRA used both those methods successfully decades ago.

There's a french solution

[m.hataj]

From the movie "Un ticket pour l'espace". Yes, always the french... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PwEO_iYkdw

Risk Criteria?

[Anonymous Coward]

The risk criteria will (perhaps indirectly) be based on income. Those with the most money will be labeled less risky. Government officials and law enforcement will be labeled less risky. Big corporate CEO's will be labeled less risky. Judges will be labeled less risky. Politicians ... they already don't get scanned.

Convenient. When they find your name on the List..

[John Hasler]

...they can simply close the end seals and turn on the gas.

Already broken

[Anonymous Coward]

The system is defective from the start. According to article

In the IATA prototype, passengers would be categorized based on the results of a government risk assessment that is put into a chip in a passenger's passport or other identification.

As everybody knows, terrorists and criminals won't use phony ID. >:P

Inconvenience?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the total invasion of privacy, technological or not, that makes me reluctant to fly. I'd rather a person search my bags and look me in the eye and question me about my destination, than have every inch of my body scanned to populate a government database.

The "Checkpoint Of The Past"

[Anonymous Coward]

These would only be checkpoints of a TomorrowLand future, not a real one. Iris, retinal and fingerprint scanning is about to become useless, as is DNA evidence. That doesnt leave much except biometrics and they don't work en masse firstly, and will be foolable too soon secondly.

Mrf.

[vegiVamp]

So what is it? Is it a mock-up or is it a prototype? Kind of a major difference to see wether it's vaporware or close to being implemented, no?

Re:Are things that are easy to blow up still allow

[bolt_the_dhampir]

Nothing more interesting than that it had to be checked in as "special luggage" I'm afraid. It traveled in a small cardboard box which came back to me on the luggage line along with my bag.

If it uses any kind of radiation..

[cheros]

.. I want a club of RADIOLOGISTS to measure the dose, and I want a formal liability statement for any cancer I may develop before I'll walk through it. The last time a "solution" was engineered it emerged to irradiate people a lot more than claimed.

I love the idea of sticking a risk assessment on a chip that the PASSENGER carries. That's about as safe as the RFID chip in your passport which you can actually read (and thus change) from about 70 meters distance. I cannot imagine it taking long before such a chip gets altered..

But hey, at least someone is for once thinking of making a traveler's life EASIER. I am not surprised that isn't the TSA..

explosives and liquids

[Eivind]

Why does it attempt to detect "explosives and liquids" ?

I thought the supposed problem with liquids was that they might be explosive, thus if you where able to successfully detect explosives, there'd be no reason whatsoever for denying liquids ?

Explosives come in all phases: solids, gels, liquids, gas. And solids are generally the most practical form. Never got the point of the liquid-ban, why ban liquids when all actual plane-bombs that I've ever heard of have been composed of solids, and solid explosives are readily available anyway ?

Here's an idea ! Let's ban gases, liquids and solids on planes !

Dumb shit.

Re:explosives and liquids

[garwain]

If gas was banned, I'd never be able to go anywhere! Seriously, I haven't had to fly since 2006, but will be flying from Burlington VT to Phoenix AZ this fall. I am seriously NOT looking forward to the security checks as things stand now. Even more so, since I'm Canadian, and my girlfriend is american, of perivian descent.

"check for liquids "and" explosives"

[Anonymous Coward]

"check for liquids "and" explosives"

If the liquids in question are not explosives then why would you need to have them as a banned item to scan for?

Learn to SPELL & WRITE, illiterate druggie

[Anonymous Coward]

The CORRECT spelling & phrase is not what you wrote:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2234578&cid=36429134

"Gotos have there place" - by JonySuede (1908576) on Monday June 13, @05:10PM (#36429134)

It's THEIR, indicating possessive, not THERE, you blatantly obvious illiterate dolt!

(LOL, If that's how you write english? I'd HATE to see your code you write (that is, IF you even do)).

---

Addendum/Update here (lmao):

You keep doing it, as evidenced in this post here I am replying to now in fact!

Case-in-point/e.g.:

"why is that I never get mod point when I am drunk, as I had would modded you up damm it !" - by JonySuede (1908576) on Saturday June 11, @11:02PM (#36415300)

Ahem: It's "get mod points", you illiterate fool - keep drinking! It's clearly doing wonders for you... not!

(Along with your pot smoking, loser!)

APK

P.S.=> Payback's a BITCH, yea? See here, and I am waiting on your trolling behind to show up there:

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2248218&cid=36479278

Just so I can publicly make you look more stupid than you already have clearly evidenced yourself to be!

... apk